Power wanted Town to be Spurs feeder club

Lee Power, far left, pictured with director Sangita Shah, manager Mark Cooper and former Town chairman Jed McCrory

Lee Power, far left, pictured with director Sangita Shah, manager Mark Cooper and former Town chairman Jed McCrory

First published in Sport Swindon Advertiser: Photograph of the Author by , @BerenCross

SWINDON Town was to become a feeder club for Premier League giants Tottenham Hotspur when Lee Power took over as director of football, a High Court judge heard yesterday.

On what was the second day of the hearing determining who owns the club, former chairman Jed McCrory alleged Power had targeted Town for the feeder model after unsuccessful attempts elsewhere.

Speaking from the witness box at the High Court, McCrory said Power had come to Town’s attention as somebody who could facilitate transfers, especially loan deals through Spurs owing to his close friendship with Tim Sherwood, technical director at the time.

McCrory said Power was brought in as an agent and director of football, tasked with bringing the wage bill down from £3.4m to £2m.

“On the basis of Lee coming, he was trying to create a feeder club with Tottenham Hotspur,” said the former Town chief.

“He wanted this position in order to create a feeder club model.”

In his own evidence given on the first day of the hearing, Power touched upon his relationship with Sherwood and why he would have been interested in seeing a group of his players on loan at one club.

“He (Tim Sherwood) had a group of players who were very difficult to have watched,” he said.

“Tim was looking for a club which he could have his players sent out to in a package, have them watched and played in a certain style.”

Over the last 14 months Town have brought a string of young Tottenham prospects to the County Ground on loan including Massimo Luongo, Alex Pritchard, Nathan Byrne and Grant Hall.

Power has previously denied any formal feeder link with Tottenham.

Current Town chairman Power also shone the light on how he first came to put the £1.2m up which would ultimately lift the transfer embargo at the County Ground and allow the trade of players ahead of last season.

“Martin King approached me and said they were looking for players still,” said Power.

“When I arranged that deal (loan signings from Spurs) I got told none of them had any money and would go into administration with the embargo.”

Power said he would come on-board and offer a short-term loan to lift the embargo.

The hearing continues with a judgement expected next week.

Comments (89)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:12am Fri 27 Jun 14

Fernham Red says...

Um.....surely us being a feeder club for spurs is not news.

Surprised by that revelation, anyone?

.....and more to the point, whether official or unofficial, surely that's not a bad thing....great young players for free for a whole season at a time

I know we have some critics of our style of play but to be honest I'm a big fan.
Um.....surely us being a feeder club for spurs is not news. Surprised by that revelation, anyone? .....and more to the point, whether official or unofficial, surely that's not a bad thing....great young players for free for a whole season at a time I know we have some critics of our style of play but to be honest I'm a big fan. Fernham Red
  • Score: 29

6:43am Fri 27 Jun 14

Haydonender says...

Out of everything that came out of court yesterday, this is what the adver makes a story out of? We all know about the relationship with Spurs, we had a mutually beneficial relationship for one season but now Sherwood is gone from Spurs so it is irrelevant anyway
Out of everything that came out of court yesterday, this is what the adver makes a story out of? We all know about the relationship with Spurs, we had a mutually beneficial relationship for one season but now Sherwood is gone from Spurs so it is irrelevant anyway Haydonender
  • Score: 2

6:47am Fri 27 Jun 14

END_UB40 (it's lame) says...

Jeddah The Gut sanctioned this concept when he hired Power, is that the point of this article?

Town Fans can be in no doubt as to the character of Jed now all details are emerging.
.... No money. No morals (lying under oath, match fix fantasies). No backers. No idea. No footballing contacts.

This guy is a repulsive individual out to wrangle more cash from STFC, that this case is taking so long to resolve is down to Lawyers (just one rung above Jeddah on the scale of low life)..... Interested to know if anyone sees it differently (esp the judge) now all info is out there.

Jog on Jeddah, you are a charlatan that has been found out.

Hope we get some new young blood next season, from whichever Prem outfit wants to utilise us!!
Jeddah The Gut sanctioned this concept when he hired Power, is that the point of this article? Town Fans can be in no doubt as to the character of Jed now all details are emerging. .... No money. No morals (lying under oath, match fix fantasies). No backers. No idea. No footballing contacts. This guy is a repulsive individual out to wrangle more cash from STFC, that this case is taking so long to resolve is down to Lawyers (just one rung above Jeddah on the scale of low life)..... Interested to know if anyone sees it differently (esp the judge) now all info is out there. Jog on Jeddah, you are a charlatan that has been found out. Hope we get some new young blood next season, from whichever Prem outfit wants to utilise us!! END_UB40 (it's lame)
  • Score: 32

7:00am Fri 27 Jun 14

port de soller says...

After yesterays court room saga it is clear Jed has come out of this being showed for what he is,he has lied under oth,damage the credibility of STFC with his mickey mouse stories,even the Judge has stated I do not Belive you what you have said under oath.
As for the FL if they wre contacted there is no case for the Town to held account for.
Must even be clear to them that they cocked up saying Jed was a fit and proper person to run STFC.So we await the final judgement let us all hope it is a good one for STFC
After yesterays court room saga it is clear Jed has come out of this being showed for what he is,he has lied under oth,damage the credibility of STFC with his mickey mouse stories,even the Judge has stated I do not Belive you what you have said under oath. As for the FL if they wre contacted there is no case for the Town to held account for. Must even be clear to them that they cocked up saying Jed was a fit and proper person to run STFC.So we await the final judgement let us all hope it is a good one for STFC port de soller
  • Score: 9

7:06am Fri 27 Jun 14

LydiardRED67 says...

Perhaps I have the wrong end of the stick, but my interpretation of a feeder club is when you have a reguler supply of your own good youngsters and you agree a deal with one particular club that they will have first refusal at whatever price.

Not hat I particularly like the deal we had with Spurs mind you. At the time I thought it was a means to an end for one season, however it seems that if Sherwood had remained in post, the arrangement woud have continued.

As I have said before, remove the loan sysytem and this isn't an issue.
Perhaps I have the wrong end of the stick, but my interpretation of a feeder club is when you have a reguler supply of your own good youngsters and you agree a deal with one particular club that they will have first refusal at whatever price. Not hat I particularly like the deal we had with Spurs mind you. At the time I thought it was a means to an end for one season, however it seems that if Sherwood had remained in post, the arrangement woud have continued. As I have said before, remove the loan sysytem and this isn't an issue. LydiardRED67
  • Score: 2

7:31am Fri 27 Jun 14

Oi Den! says...

I don't see any reason to knock the Adver for reporting this evidence. It's a court of law trying to determine the ownership of our football club. The detail of how Power's relationship with the club started is an important part of the picture. Whether or not we believe any particular evidence or whether we know it already is neither here nor there. I certainly want to hear/read it all anyway. It reminds me a bit of the people who shut their eyes and ears to fredi's statements on here, despite the very credible way in which he made them, just because they didn't want to believe they were true. I didn't want to believe them either but if you try hard enough it's not that difficult to tell the difference between someone who is painting a true picture of all the facts and someone who feeds you a diet of constant bullshiit.
I don't see any reason to knock the Adver for reporting this evidence. It's a court of law trying to determine the ownership of our football club. The detail of how Power's relationship with the club started is an important part of the picture. Whether or not we believe any particular evidence or whether we know it already is neither here nor there. I certainly want to hear/read it all anyway. It reminds me a bit of the people who shut their eyes and ears to fredi's statements on here, despite the very credible way in which he made them, just because they didn't want to believe they were true. I didn't want to believe them either but if you try hard enough it's not that difficult to tell the difference between someone who is painting a true picture of all the facts and someone who feeds you a diet of constant bullshiit. Oi Den!
  • Score: 8

7:52am Fri 27 Jun 14

Oi Den! says...

LydiardRED67 wrote:
Perhaps I have the wrong end of the stick, but my interpretation of a feeder club is when you have a reguler supply of your own good youngsters and you agree a deal with one particular club that they will have first refusal at whatever price.

Not hat I particularly like the deal we had with Spurs mind you. At the time I thought it was a means to an end for one season, however it seems that if Sherwood had remained in post, the arrangement woud have continued.

As I have said before, remove the loan sysytem and this isn't an issue.
That's my interpretation too. Our situation seems to be that of a reverse feeder club.

I wouldn't go quite as far as removing the loan system altogether, as it can serve a useful purpose in emergencies, but it needs a radical overhaul. Limit the size of squads allowed in the top two divisions, so that the big clubs can't hog redundant players who would otherwise be finding their own level in the game by hard work and gradual progress. Either that or they have their own reserve leagues where they can compete for first team places. The lower divisions can survive comfortably without them. Clubs would have a truer identity and the best teams would come out on top.

Lydiard, shall we build a little bunker for two and get a couple of tin hats for when we need to come out for food?
[quote][p][bold]LydiardRED67[/bold] wrote: Perhaps I have the wrong end of the stick, but my interpretation of a feeder club is when you have a reguler supply of your own good youngsters and you agree a deal with one particular club that they will have first refusal at whatever price. Not hat I particularly like the deal we had with Spurs mind you. At the time I thought it was a means to an end for one season, however it seems that if Sherwood had remained in post, the arrangement woud have continued. As I have said before, remove the loan sysytem and this isn't an issue.[/p][/quote]That's my interpretation too. Our situation seems to be that of a reverse feeder club. I wouldn't go quite as far as removing the loan system altogether, as it can serve a useful purpose in emergencies, but it needs a radical overhaul. Limit the size of squads allowed in the top two divisions, so that the big clubs can't hog redundant players who would otherwise be finding their own level in the game by hard work and gradual progress. Either that or they have their own reserve leagues where they can compete for first team places. The lower divisions can survive comfortably without them. Clubs would have a truer identity and the best teams would come out on top. Lydiard, shall we build a little bunker for two and get a couple of tin hats for when we need to come out for food? Oi Den!
  • Score: 5

7:56am Fri 27 Jun 14

Wildwestener says...

LydiardRED67 wrote:
Perhaps I have the wrong end of the stick, but my interpretation of a feeder club is when you have a reguler supply of your own good youngsters and you agree a deal with one particular club that they will have first refusal at whatever price.

Not hat I particularly like the deal we had with Spurs mind you. At the time I thought it was a means to an end for one season, however it seems that if Sherwood had remained in post, the arrangement woud have continued.

As I have said before, remove the loan sysytem and this isn't an issue.
I have to agree, Swindon needs to be it's own club, not the Spurs Youth team in all but name.
It's such a shame to see our once proud club reduced to this nonsense (bickering owners who seem to have ulterior motives of one sort or another, fighting over the club.
[quote][p][bold]LydiardRED67[/bold] wrote: Perhaps I have the wrong end of the stick, but my interpretation of a feeder club is when you have a reguler supply of your own good youngsters and you agree a deal with one particular club that they will have first refusal at whatever price. Not hat I particularly like the deal we had with Spurs mind you. At the time I thought it was a means to an end for one season, however it seems that if Sherwood had remained in post, the arrangement woud have continued. As I have said before, remove the loan sysytem and this isn't an issue.[/p][/quote]I have to agree, Swindon needs to be it's own club, not the Spurs Youth team in all but name. It's such a shame to see our once proud club reduced to this nonsense (bickering owners who seem to have ulterior motives of one sort or another, fighting over the club. Wildwestener
  • Score: 1

8:01am Fri 27 Jun 14

old town robin says...

Power said with regards the accusation from Jed of match fixing, quote "It was something he felt he needed to say when he knew he'd been found out with stealing money from the football club.

Hopefully the question on ownership will be sorted today, but the case against McCrory for stealing from the club is now out in the open and will surely still be pursued to recover any ill-gotten gains he and his cronies took out of the coffers. Knowing what the financial situation with the club was, it can be compared with taking money from a blind man's begging cup. he got found out and now hopefully it's time to pay the piper. .
Power said with regards the accusation from Jed of match fixing, quote "It was something he felt he needed to say when he knew he'd been found out with stealing money from the football club. Hopefully the question on ownership will be sorted today, but the case against McCrory for stealing from the club is now out in the open and will surely still be pursued to recover any ill-gotten gains he and his cronies took out of the coffers. Knowing what the financial situation with the club was, it can be compared with taking money from a blind man's begging cup. he got found out and now hopefully it's time to pay the piper. . old town robin
  • Score: 9

8:07am Fri 27 Jun 14

Helpme234 says...

Did I read on one of the threads that JM was concerned about his reputation because he had ambitions to go into politics?
Presumablly the Guilty Party!
Did I read on one of the threads that JM was concerned about his reputation because he had ambitions to go into politics? Presumablly the Guilty Party! Helpme234
  • Score: 8

8:08am Fri 27 Jun 14

Since 1950 says...

There is only one question I want an answer to and that is, just how the hell did Jed and his potless crew pass the 'fit and proper' test in the first place?

I still fear for our future when all this is done and dusted.
There is only one question I want an answer to and that is, just how the hell did Jed and his potless crew pass the 'fit and proper' test in the first place? I still fear for our future when all this is done and dusted. Since 1950
  • Score: 35

8:10am Fri 27 Jun 14

LeGod says...

I think alot of us knew Jed was a professional Bull******r and now it has come out in the open he has been shown up for what he really is and was planning to do to our club which was ro milk it dry and disappear.
I've said all along the guy is not straight and i wonder what else he has done we dont know about.
Lets get this fiasco out the way and move on. I hope Jed has to end up paying all the costs of this case and it destroys him.
His attempts to go into other clubs has surely now been ended as well after this as no one will touch him with a barge pole as the other clubs that did reject him sussed him out for what he really is a fly by night crook.
Good luck LP in the rest of the case and lets hope the judge decides in your favour.
I think alot of us knew Jed was a professional Bull******r and now it has come out in the open he has been shown up for what he really is and was planning to do to our club which was ro milk it dry and disappear. I've said all along the guy is not straight and i wonder what else he has done we dont know about. Lets get this fiasco out the way and move on. I hope Jed has to end up paying all the costs of this case and it destroys him. His attempts to go into other clubs has surely now been ended as well after this as no one will touch him with a barge pole as the other clubs that did reject him sussed him out for what he really is a fly by night crook. Good luck LP in the rest of the case and lets hope the judge decides in your favour. LeGod
  • Score: 15

8:19am Fri 27 Jun 14

Since 1950 says...

Oi Den! wrote:
LydiardRED67 wrote:
Perhaps I have the wrong end of the stick, but my interpretation of a feeder club is when you have a reguler supply of your own good youngsters and you agree a deal with one particular club that they will have first refusal at whatever price.

Not hat I particularly like the deal we had with Spurs mind you. At the time I thought it was a means to an end for one season, however it seems that if Sherwood had remained in post, the arrangement woud have continued.

As I have said before, remove the loan sysytem and this isn't an issue.
That's my interpretation too. Our situation seems to be that of a reverse feeder club.

I wouldn't go quite as far as removing the loan system altogether, as it can serve a useful purpose in emergencies, but it needs a radical overhaul. Limit the size of squads allowed in the top two divisions, so that the big clubs can't hog redundant players who would otherwise be finding their own level in the game by hard work and gradual progress. Either that or they have their own reserve leagues where they can compete for first team places. The lower divisions can survive comfortably without them. Clubs would have a truer identity and the best teams would come out on top.

Lydiard, shall we build a little bunker for two and get a couple of tin hats for when we need to come out for food?
Den. I agree with your concept of limiting the size of squads for the top two leagues. It would never happen though. The 'greed league' was introduced to make English clubs dominant in Europe. It has largely failed of course and totally ruined our national game in the process. The greed league would soon squeal 'level playing field' if they had a cap placed on their squad numbers unless it was Europe wide. The same as they would squeal if they had a cap on non English players they were allowed to sign.

Just about had enough of our 'beautiful game at the moment. Couldn't even be bother to watch the world cup games last night. Watched a film instead. All I see now are cheats, liars, prima donnas and corruption. You even have to question the result of the opening game in Brazil!
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LydiardRED67[/bold] wrote: Perhaps I have the wrong end of the stick, but my interpretation of a feeder club is when you have a reguler supply of your own good youngsters and you agree a deal with one particular club that they will have first refusal at whatever price. Not hat I particularly like the deal we had with Spurs mind you. At the time I thought it was a means to an end for one season, however it seems that if Sherwood had remained in post, the arrangement woud have continued. As I have said before, remove the loan sysytem and this isn't an issue.[/p][/quote]That's my interpretation too. Our situation seems to be that of a reverse feeder club. I wouldn't go quite as far as removing the loan system altogether, as it can serve a useful purpose in emergencies, but it needs a radical overhaul. Limit the size of squads allowed in the top two divisions, so that the big clubs can't hog redundant players who would otherwise be finding their own level in the game by hard work and gradual progress. Either that or they have their own reserve leagues where they can compete for first team places. The lower divisions can survive comfortably without them. Clubs would have a truer identity and the best teams would come out on top. Lydiard, shall we build a little bunker for two and get a couple of tin hats for when we need to come out for food?[/p][/quote]Den. I agree with your concept of limiting the size of squads for the top two leagues. It would never happen though. The 'greed league' was introduced to make English clubs dominant in Europe. It has largely failed of course and totally ruined our national game in the process. The greed league would soon squeal 'level playing field' if they had a cap placed on their squad numbers unless it was Europe wide. The same as they would squeal if they had a cap on non English players they were allowed to sign. Just about had enough of our 'beautiful game at the moment. Couldn't even be bother to watch the world cup games last night. Watched a film instead. All I see now are cheats, liars, prima donnas and corruption. You even have to question the result of the opening game in Brazil! Since 1950
  • Score: 18

8:22am Fri 27 Jun 14

umpcah says...

Wildwestener wrote:
LydiardRED67 wrote:
Perhaps I have the wrong end of the stick, but my interpretation of a feeder club is when you have a reguler supply of your own good youngsters and you agree a deal with one particular club that they will have first refusal at whatever price.

Not hat I particularly like the deal we had with Spurs mind you. At the time I thought it was a means to an end for one season, however it seems that if Sherwood had remained in post, the arrangement woud have continued.

As I have said before, remove the loan sysytem and this isn't an issue.
I have to agree, Swindon needs to be it's own club, not the Spurs Youth team in all but name.
It's such a shame to see our once proud club reduced to this nonsense (bickering owners who seem to have ulterior motives of one sort or another, fighting over the club.
" Swindon needs to be it's own club, not the Spurs Youth team in all but name " In recent times STFC`s bank account has not been a bottomless pit for dipping into for better players. An arrangement with a Premiership club for the borrowing of a few of their surplus but talented young players with a promise of " first refusal " on any gems produced within a youth movement is fine by me at this time.
[quote][p][bold]Wildwestener[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LydiardRED67[/bold] wrote: Perhaps I have the wrong end of the stick, but my interpretation of a feeder club is when you have a reguler supply of your own good youngsters and you agree a deal with one particular club that they will have first refusal at whatever price. Not hat I particularly like the deal we had with Spurs mind you. At the time I thought it was a means to an end for one season, however it seems that if Sherwood had remained in post, the arrangement woud have continued. As I have said before, remove the loan sysytem and this isn't an issue.[/p][/quote]I have to agree, Swindon needs to be it's own club, not the Spurs Youth team in all but name. It's such a shame to see our once proud club reduced to this nonsense (bickering owners who seem to have ulterior motives of one sort or another, fighting over the club.[/p][/quote]" Swindon needs to be it's own club, not the Spurs Youth team in all but name " In recent times STFC`s bank account has not been a bottomless pit for dipping into for better players. An arrangement with a Premiership club for the borrowing of a few of their surplus but talented young players with a promise of " first refusal " on any gems produced within a youth movement is fine by me at this time. umpcah
  • Score: 6

8:26am Fri 27 Jun 14

old town robin says...

Oi Den! wrote:
LydiardRED67 wrote:
Perhaps I have the wrong end of the stick, but my interpretation of a feeder club is when you have a reguler supply of your own good youngsters and you agree a deal with one particular club that they will have first refusal at whatever price.

Not hat I particularly like the deal we had with Spurs mind you. At the time I thought it was a means to an end for one season, however it seems that if Sherwood had remained in post, the arrangement woud have continued.

As I have said before, remove the loan sysytem and this isn't an issue.
That's my interpretation too. Our situation seems to be that of a reverse feeder club.

I wouldn't go quite as far as removing the loan system altogether, as it can serve a useful purpose in emergencies, but it needs a radical overhaul. Limit the size of squads allowed in the top two divisions, so that the big clubs can't hog redundant players who would otherwise be finding their own level in the game by hard work and gradual progress. Either that or they have their own reserve leagues where they can compete for first team places. The lower divisions can survive comfortably without them. Clubs would have a truer identity and the best teams would come out on top.

Lydiard, shall we build a little bunker for two and get a couple of tin hats for when we need to come out for food?
Your views on the loan system guy's is very admirable, but put yourself in Lee power's situation as Director of Football. he enters the affray just after us losing a very good chance of automatic promotion with PdC's team that needed those 3 extra good quality loanee's to get us over the line. Sadly it wasn't to be as the Spur's boys that arrived didn't have the experience that bradley philips and the Cheltenham boy could have provided us with.

Faced with the off loading of a few over paid deadwoods, where else were we going to find players to make up the numbers if Lee hadn't had this relationship with Tim? IMO, it worked out for all concerned the players benefited getting experience, we benefited with a top half finish and Spurs benefited getting regular football of their development team as a unit.

I can foresee a similar arrangement this season as we are still not quite stable enough to be looking to sign too many players of our own, Lee has proved the concept model works, with Tim gone it may not be with Spurs, but maybe with Southampton. I believe most of the present squad are back for pre-season next week, so we really need to kick on and start adding players whether they will our own or loanee's
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LydiardRED67[/bold] wrote: Perhaps I have the wrong end of the stick, but my interpretation of a feeder club is when you have a reguler supply of your own good youngsters and you agree a deal with one particular club that they will have first refusal at whatever price. Not hat I particularly like the deal we had with Spurs mind you. At the time I thought it was a means to an end for one season, however it seems that if Sherwood had remained in post, the arrangement woud have continued. As I have said before, remove the loan sysytem and this isn't an issue.[/p][/quote]That's my interpretation too. Our situation seems to be that of a reverse feeder club. I wouldn't go quite as far as removing the loan system altogether, as it can serve a useful purpose in emergencies, but it needs a radical overhaul. Limit the size of squads allowed in the top two divisions, so that the big clubs can't hog redundant players who would otherwise be finding their own level in the game by hard work and gradual progress. Either that or they have their own reserve leagues where they can compete for first team places. The lower divisions can survive comfortably without them. Clubs would have a truer identity and the best teams would come out on top. Lydiard, shall we build a little bunker for two and get a couple of tin hats for when we need to come out for food?[/p][/quote]Your views on the loan system guy's is very admirable, but put yourself in Lee power's situation as Director of Football. he enters the affray just after us losing a very good chance of automatic promotion with PdC's team that needed those 3 extra good quality loanee's to get us over the line. Sadly it wasn't to be as the Spur's boys that arrived didn't have the experience that bradley philips and the Cheltenham boy could have provided us with. Faced with the off loading of a few over paid deadwoods, where else were we going to find players to make up the numbers if Lee hadn't had this relationship with Tim? IMO, it worked out for all concerned the players benefited getting experience, we benefited with a top half finish and Spurs benefited getting regular football of their development team as a unit. I can foresee a similar arrangement this season as we are still not quite stable enough to be looking to sign too many players of our own, Lee has proved the concept model works, with Tim gone it may not be with Spurs, but maybe with Southampton. I believe most of the present squad are back for pre-season next week, so we really need to kick on and start adding players whether they will our own or loanee's old town robin
  • Score: 8

8:33am Fri 27 Jun 14

stokes_stfc says...

Helpme234 wrote:
Did I read on one of the threads that JM was concerned about his reputation because he had ambitions to go into politics?
Presumablly the Guilty Party!
Does not surprise me that Jed wants to go into politics - He is a pathological liar and untrustworthy little runt. When he was involved with the club he claims to own he just said whatever he thought the fans wanted to hear, with no intention of delivering it... (e.g. club would be operating on the same budget as the wray era, trying to convince PdC to return, concerts that were going to rake the money in).

God help him if he does own the club, cause he's not going to be welcome in the town, let alone the county ground!
[quote][p][bold]Helpme234[/bold] wrote: Did I read on one of the threads that JM was concerned about his reputation because he had ambitions to go into politics? Presumablly the Guilty Party![/p][/quote]Does not surprise me that Jed wants to go into politics - He is a pathological liar and untrustworthy little runt. When he was involved with the club he claims to own he just said whatever he thought the fans wanted to hear, with no intention of delivering it... (e.g. club would be operating on the same budget as the wray era, trying to convince PdC to return, concerts that were going to rake the money in). God help him if he does own the club, cause he's not going to be welcome in the town, let alone the county ground! stokes_stfc
  • Score: 12

8:35am Fri 27 Jun 14

the wizard says...

Up until yesterday Jed had a limited amount of credibility, now he has none. Even the Judge does not believe him and as such has accused Jed of lies under oath. At the end of the day it is plain to see that despite how Jed has wrapped up the parcel to disguise it, the fact of the matter is he is only after one thing, money from Power. All the window dressing about about e-mails, verbal agreements, match fixing is just simply a cloak and dagger Miss Marple around the fact that Jedco want more money out of Power. I think Jed and Muriel have become disillusioned now that Power has built something up which is good and sustainable, something which with their limited ability they couldn't do, so its a trip back to the trough and milk the cash cow for more. Parasites of the lowest order. I hope the judge fries them in their own fat, and in Jeds case, he has enough of it, loads of lager, eh Jed, loads of lager, and this Philistine wants to go into politics !!!!!! I dread to think the amount of sleeze he would add to that pot, as if there isn't enough already.
Up until yesterday Jed had a limited amount of credibility, now he has none. Even the Judge does not believe him and as such has accused Jed of lies under oath. At the end of the day it is plain to see that despite how Jed has wrapped up the parcel to disguise it, the fact of the matter is he is only after one thing, money from Power. All the window dressing about about e-mails, verbal agreements, match fixing is just simply a cloak and dagger Miss Marple around the fact that Jedco want more money out of Power. I think Jed and Muriel have become disillusioned now that Power has built something up which is good and sustainable, something which with their limited ability they couldn't do, so its a trip back to the trough and milk the cash cow for more. Parasites of the lowest order. I hope the judge fries them in their own fat, and in Jeds case, he has enough of it, loads of lager, eh Jed, loads of lager, and this Philistine wants to go into politics !!!!!! I dread to think the amount of sleeze he would add to that pot, as if there isn't enough already. the wizard
  • Score: 10

8:49am Fri 27 Jun 14

bradley red 1 says...

Here you go..Martin King was lurking in the back ground all along!!
Here you go..Martin King was lurking in the back ground all along!! bradley red 1
  • Score: 1

9:05am Fri 27 Jun 14

grove red says...

Since 1950 wrote:
There is only one question I want an answer to and that is, just how the hell did Jed and his potless crew pass the 'fit and proper' test in the first place?

I still fear for our future when all this is done and dusted.
That's what I would like to know to. Maybe the fa could be asked by the stfc trust this question as this fit and proper does not work.
[quote][p][bold]Since 1950[/bold] wrote: There is only one question I want an answer to and that is, just how the hell did Jed and his potless crew pass the 'fit and proper' test in the first place? I still fear for our future when all this is done and dusted.[/p][/quote]That's what I would like to know to. Maybe the fa could be asked by the stfc trust this question as this fit and proper does not work. grove red
  • Score: 3

9:05am Fri 27 Jun 14

London Red says...

old town robin wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
LydiardRED67 wrote: Perhaps I have the wrong end of the stick, but my interpretation of a feeder club is when you have a reguler supply of your own good youngsters and you agree a deal with one particular club that they will have first refusal at whatever price. Not hat I particularly like the deal we had with Spurs mind you. At the time I thought it was a means to an end for one season, however it seems that if Sherwood had remained in post, the arrangement woud have continued. As I have said before, remove the loan sysytem and this isn't an issue.
That's my interpretation too. Our situation seems to be that of a reverse feeder club. I wouldn't go quite as far as removing the loan system altogether, as it can serve a useful purpose in emergencies, but it needs a radical overhaul. Limit the size of squads allowed in the top two divisions, so that the big clubs can't hog redundant players who would otherwise be finding their own level in the game by hard work and gradual progress. Either that or they have their own reserve leagues where they can compete for first team places. The lower divisions can survive comfortably without them. Clubs would have a truer identity and the best teams would come out on top. Lydiard, shall we build a little bunker for two and get a couple of tin hats for when we need to come out for food?
Your views on the loan system guy's is very admirable, but put yourself in Lee power's situation as Director of Football. he enters the affray just after us losing a very good chance of automatic promotion with PdC's team that needed those 3 extra good quality loanee's to get us over the line. Sadly it wasn't to be as the Spur's boys that arrived didn't have the experience that bradley philips and the Cheltenham boy could have provided us with. Faced with the off loading of a few over paid deadwoods, where else were we going to find players to make up the numbers if Lee hadn't had this relationship with Tim? IMO, it worked out for all concerned the players benefited getting experience, we benefited with a top half finish and Spurs benefited getting regular football of their development team as a unit. I can foresee a similar arrangement this season as we are still not quite stable enough to be looking to sign too many players of our own, Lee has proved the concept model works, with Tim gone it may not be with Spurs, but maybe with Southampton. I believe most of the present squad are back for pre-season next week, so we really need to kick on and start adding players whether they will our own or loanee's
Totally agree and if this type of arrangement sees us land a few more Luongo and Byrne's - all the better!
[quote][p][bold]old town robin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LydiardRED67[/bold] wrote: Perhaps I have the wrong end of the stick, but my interpretation of a feeder club is when you have a reguler supply of your own good youngsters and you agree a deal with one particular club that they will have first refusal at whatever price. Not hat I particularly like the deal we had with Spurs mind you. At the time I thought it was a means to an end for one season, however it seems that if Sherwood had remained in post, the arrangement woud have continued. As I have said before, remove the loan sysytem and this isn't an issue.[/p][/quote]That's my interpretation too. Our situation seems to be that of a reverse feeder club. I wouldn't go quite as far as removing the loan system altogether, as it can serve a useful purpose in emergencies, but it needs a radical overhaul. Limit the size of squads allowed in the top two divisions, so that the big clubs can't hog redundant players who would otherwise be finding their own level in the game by hard work and gradual progress. Either that or they have their own reserve leagues where they can compete for first team places. The lower divisions can survive comfortably without them. Clubs would have a truer identity and the best teams would come out on top. Lydiard, shall we build a little bunker for two and get a couple of tin hats for when we need to come out for food?[/p][/quote]Your views on the loan system guy's is very admirable, but put yourself in Lee power's situation as Director of Football. he enters the affray just after us losing a very good chance of automatic promotion with PdC's team that needed those 3 extra good quality loanee's to get us over the line. Sadly it wasn't to be as the Spur's boys that arrived didn't have the experience that bradley philips and the Cheltenham boy could have provided us with. Faced with the off loading of a few over paid deadwoods, where else were we going to find players to make up the numbers if Lee hadn't had this relationship with Tim? IMO, it worked out for all concerned the players benefited getting experience, we benefited with a top half finish and Spurs benefited getting regular football of their development team as a unit. I can foresee a similar arrangement this season as we are still not quite stable enough to be looking to sign too many players of our own, Lee has proved the concept model works, with Tim gone it may not be with Spurs, but maybe with Southampton. I believe most of the present squad are back for pre-season next week, so we really need to kick on and start adding players whether they will our own or loanee's[/p][/quote]Totally agree and if this type of arrangement sees us land a few more Luongo and Byrne's - all the better! London Red
  • Score: 4

9:16am Fri 27 Jun 14

Oi Den! says...

the wizard wrote:
Up until yesterday Jed had a limited amount of credibility, now he has none. Even the Judge does not believe him and as such has accused Jed of lies under oath. At the end of the day it is plain to see that despite how Jed has wrapped up the parcel to disguise it, the fact of the matter is he is only after one thing, money from Power. All the window dressing about about e-mails, verbal agreements, match fixing is just simply a cloak and dagger Miss Marple around the fact that Jedco want more money out of Power. I think Jed and Muriel have become disillusioned now that Power has built something up which is good and sustainable, something which with their limited ability they couldn't do, so its a trip back to the trough and milk the cash cow for more. Parasites of the lowest order. I hope the judge fries them in their own fat, and in Jeds case, he has enough of it, loads of lager, eh Jed, loads of lager, and this Philistine wants to go into politics !!!!!! I dread to think the amount of sleeze he would add to that pot, as if there isn't enough already.
Wiz, I think it's just McCrory's way of spiteful retaliation for being sacked after allegedly being caught with his hand in the till. The match fixing thing was no doubt part of the same strategy - a desperate attempt to threaten Power. I don't suppose too many of us would have had Power near the top of our list of favourite people to run the club but compared with McCrory he cuts a saintly figure.

People are asking why the FL allowed McCrory and his crew to take over. There was a long delay before they ratified the deal so they were clearly not comfortable with it but they probably didn't have enough evidence to block it. If there is one good thing to come out of all this it's that McCrory's underhand methods have finally been brutally exposed to daylight and he should never be allowed to darken the doors of a football club again.
[quote][p][bold]the wizard[/bold] wrote: Up until yesterday Jed had a limited amount of credibility, now he has none. Even the Judge does not believe him and as such has accused Jed of lies under oath. At the end of the day it is plain to see that despite how Jed has wrapped up the parcel to disguise it, the fact of the matter is he is only after one thing, money from Power. All the window dressing about about e-mails, verbal agreements, match fixing is just simply a cloak and dagger Miss Marple around the fact that Jedco want more money out of Power. I think Jed and Muriel have become disillusioned now that Power has built something up which is good and sustainable, something which with their limited ability they couldn't do, so its a trip back to the trough and milk the cash cow for more. Parasites of the lowest order. I hope the judge fries them in their own fat, and in Jeds case, he has enough of it, loads of lager, eh Jed, loads of lager, and this Philistine wants to go into politics !!!!!! I dread to think the amount of sleeze he would add to that pot, as if there isn't enough already.[/p][/quote]Wiz, I think it's just McCrory's way of spiteful retaliation for being sacked after allegedly being caught with his hand in the till. The match fixing thing was no doubt part of the same strategy - a desperate attempt to threaten Power. I don't suppose too many of us would have had Power near the top of our list of favourite people to run the club but compared with McCrory he cuts a saintly figure. People are asking why the FL allowed McCrory and his crew to take over. There was a long delay before they ratified the deal so they were clearly not comfortable with it but they probably didn't have enough evidence to block it. If there is one good thing to come out of all this it's that McCrory's underhand methods have finally been brutally exposed to daylight and he should never be allowed to darken the doors of a football club again. Oi Den!
  • Score: 10

9:17am Fri 27 Jun 14

London Red says...

Since 1950 wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
LydiardRED67 wrote: Perhaps I have the wrong end of the stick, but my interpretation of a feeder club is when you have a reguler supply of your own good youngsters and you agree a deal with one particular club that they will have first refusal at whatever price. Not hat I particularly like the deal we had with Spurs mind you. At the time I thought it was a means to an end for one season, however it seems that if Sherwood had remained in post, the arrangement woud have continued. As I have said before, remove the loan sysytem and this isn't an issue.
That's my interpretation too. Our situation seems to be that of a reverse feeder club. I wouldn't go quite as far as removing the loan system altogether, as it can serve a useful purpose in emergencies, but it needs a radical overhaul. Limit the size of squads allowed in the top two divisions, so that the big clubs can't hog redundant players who would otherwise be finding their own level in the game by hard work and gradual progress. Either that or they have their own reserve leagues where they can compete for first team places. The lower divisions can survive comfortably without them. Clubs would have a truer identity and the best teams would come out on top. Lydiard, shall we build a little bunker for two and get a couple of tin hats for when we need to come out for food?
Den. I agree with your concept of limiting the size of squads for the top two leagues. It would never happen though. The 'greed league' was introduced to make English clubs dominant in Europe. It has largely failed of course and totally ruined our national game in the process. The greed league would soon squeal 'level playing field' if they had a cap placed on their squad numbers unless it was Europe wide. The same as they would squeal if they had a cap on non English players they were allowed to sign. Just about had enough of our 'beautiful game at the moment. Couldn't even be bother to watch the world cup games last night. Watched a film instead. All I see now are cheats, liars, prima donnas and corruption. You even have to question the result of the opening game in Brazil!
Not so sure on failing to dominate Europe - Man U won it twice and Liverpool and Chelsea have also won it
.
We also have had an all English final and on numerous occassions had 2 or 3 of the semi finalists
.
OK it has shifted a bit back to Spain and Germany - but like us that won't last forever - especially if most of their stars head over here or Bayern continue to operate in a one team league signing anyone from their rivals who is half decent
.
I do agree things need to change at the top to enhance football throughout the country including our disaterous national side - limiting squads and increasing home grown quotes is part of it (and making home grown actually mean home grown!) - but loans need to stay as they are vital to young players and lower league clubs
.
The idea we would all survive without them is total nonsence - yes we could name teams - but the quality we deteriate dramtically only widening the gap more and more
.
Its like saying transfer should be banned and we can only use our youth products - Yes we would have a team but would they compete like our actual team?
.
Bedwell
N.Thompson Oakley De Costa Jones
Ferguson L.Thompson Walsh
Storey Waldon Francis
.
Fancy watching that next season?
[quote][p][bold]Since 1950[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LydiardRED67[/bold] wrote: Perhaps I have the wrong end of the stick, but my interpretation of a feeder club is when you have a reguler supply of your own good youngsters and you agree a deal with one particular club that they will have first refusal at whatever price. Not hat I particularly like the deal we had with Spurs mind you. At the time I thought it was a means to an end for one season, however it seems that if Sherwood had remained in post, the arrangement woud have continued. As I have said before, remove the loan sysytem and this isn't an issue.[/p][/quote]That's my interpretation too. Our situation seems to be that of a reverse feeder club. I wouldn't go quite as far as removing the loan system altogether, as it can serve a useful purpose in emergencies, but it needs a radical overhaul. Limit the size of squads allowed in the top two divisions, so that the big clubs can't hog redundant players who would otherwise be finding their own level in the game by hard work and gradual progress. Either that or they have their own reserve leagues where they can compete for first team places. The lower divisions can survive comfortably without them. Clubs would have a truer identity and the best teams would come out on top. Lydiard, shall we build a little bunker for two and get a couple of tin hats for when we need to come out for food?[/p][/quote]Den. I agree with your concept of limiting the size of squads for the top two leagues. It would never happen though. The 'greed league' was introduced to make English clubs dominant in Europe. It has largely failed of course and totally ruined our national game in the process. The greed league would soon squeal 'level playing field' if they had a cap placed on their squad numbers unless it was Europe wide. The same as they would squeal if they had a cap on non English players they were allowed to sign. Just about had enough of our 'beautiful game at the moment. Couldn't even be bother to watch the world cup games last night. Watched a film instead. All I see now are cheats, liars, prima donnas and corruption. You even have to question the result of the opening game in Brazil![/p][/quote]Not so sure on failing to dominate Europe - Man U won it twice and Liverpool and Chelsea have also won it . We also have had an all English final and on numerous occassions had 2 or 3 of the semi finalists . OK it has shifted a bit back to Spain and Germany - but like us that won't last forever - especially if most of their stars head over here or Bayern continue to operate in a one team league signing anyone from their rivals who is half decent . I do agree things need to change at the top to enhance football throughout the country including our disaterous national side - limiting squads and increasing home grown quotes is part of it (and making home grown actually mean home grown!) - but loans need to stay as they are vital to young players and lower league clubs . The idea we would all survive without them is total nonsence - yes we could name teams - but the quality we deteriate dramtically only widening the gap more and more . Its like saying transfer should be banned and we can only use our youth products - Yes we would have a team but would they compete like our actual team? . Bedwell N.Thompson Oakley De Costa Jones Ferguson L.Thompson Walsh Storey Waldon Francis . Fancy watching that next season? London Red
  • Score: -4

9:36am Fri 27 Jun 14

Oi Den! says...

London Red wrote:
Since 1950 wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
LydiardRED67 wrote: Perhaps I have the wrong end of the stick, but my interpretation of a feeder club is when you have a reguler supply of your own good youngsters and you agree a deal with one particular club that they will have first refusal at whatever price. Not hat I particularly like the deal we had with Spurs mind you. At the time I thought it was a means to an end for one season, however it seems that if Sherwood had remained in post, the arrangement woud have continued. As I have said before, remove the loan sysytem and this isn't an issue.
That's my interpretation too. Our situation seems to be that of a reverse feeder club. I wouldn't go quite as far as removing the loan system altogether, as it can serve a useful purpose in emergencies, but it needs a radical overhaul. Limit the size of squads allowed in the top two divisions, so that the big clubs can't hog redundant players who would otherwise be finding their own level in the game by hard work and gradual progress. Either that or they have their own reserve leagues where they can compete for first team places. The lower divisions can survive comfortably without them. Clubs would have a truer identity and the best teams would come out on top. Lydiard, shall we build a little bunker for two and get a couple of tin hats for when we need to come out for food?
Den. I agree with your concept of limiting the size of squads for the top two leagues. It would never happen though. The 'greed league' was introduced to make English clubs dominant in Europe. It has largely failed of course and totally ruined our national game in the process. The greed league would soon squeal 'level playing field' if they had a cap placed on their squad numbers unless it was Europe wide. The same as they would squeal if they had a cap on non English players they were allowed to sign. Just about had enough of our 'beautiful game at the moment. Couldn't even be bother to watch the world cup games last night. Watched a film instead. All I see now are cheats, liars, prima donnas and corruption. You even have to question the result of the opening game in Brazil!
Not so sure on failing to dominate Europe - Man U won it twice and Liverpool and Chelsea have also won it
.
We also have had an all English final and on numerous occassions had 2 or 3 of the semi finalists
.
OK it has shifted a bit back to Spain and Germany - but like us that won't last forever - especially if most of their stars head over here or Bayern continue to operate in a one team league signing anyone from their rivals who is half decent
.
I do agree things need to change at the top to enhance football throughout the country including our disaterous national side - limiting squads and increasing home grown quotes is part of it (and making home grown actually mean home grown!) - but loans need to stay as they are vital to young players and lower league clubs
.
The idea we would all survive without them is total nonsence - yes we could name teams - but the quality we deteriate dramtically only widening the gap more and more
.
Its like saying transfer should be banned and we can only use our youth products - Yes we would have a team but would they compete like our actual team?
.
Bedwell
N.Thompson Oakley De Costa Jones
Ferguson L.Thompson Walsh
Storey Waldon Francis
.
Fancy watching that next season?
Why is it nonsense to say lower division clubs could survive without loans? We would all be in the same boat wouldn't we? In fact, it might make the playing field more even. "Who you know" would be less important. It's all very well liking the idea of systematic use of the loan system when we have a cosy relationship with a big club, but what if we were at the bottom of the pecking order and nobody wanted us to have their players? How would we all feel about that if other clubs were gaining an advantage on us? These things go in cycles. Sherwood has gone from Spurs. Power won't be with the Town for ever. I could just about stomach last season's arrangement as a way of getting us through another year. For the good of the game, we have to get back to a system where players earn their moves to top clubs by proving themselves. Then these players would still be available to clubs like us as they progress but without the sham of them being on the books of big clubs hoping to cash in on their possible future value.
[quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Since 1950[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LydiardRED67[/bold] wrote: Perhaps I have the wrong end of the stick, but my interpretation of a feeder club is when you have a reguler supply of your own good youngsters and you agree a deal with one particular club that they will have first refusal at whatever price. Not hat I particularly like the deal we had with Spurs mind you. At the time I thought it was a means to an end for one season, however it seems that if Sherwood had remained in post, the arrangement woud have continued. As I have said before, remove the loan sysytem and this isn't an issue.[/p][/quote]That's my interpretation too. Our situation seems to be that of a reverse feeder club. I wouldn't go quite as far as removing the loan system altogether, as it can serve a useful purpose in emergencies, but it needs a radical overhaul. Limit the size of squads allowed in the top two divisions, so that the big clubs can't hog redundant players who would otherwise be finding their own level in the game by hard work and gradual progress. Either that or they have their own reserve leagues where they can compete for first team places. The lower divisions can survive comfortably without them. Clubs would have a truer identity and the best teams would come out on top. Lydiard, shall we build a little bunker for two and get a couple of tin hats for when we need to come out for food?[/p][/quote]Den. I agree with your concept of limiting the size of squads for the top two leagues. It would never happen though. The 'greed league' was introduced to make English clubs dominant in Europe. It has largely failed of course and totally ruined our national game in the process. The greed league would soon squeal 'level playing field' if they had a cap placed on their squad numbers unless it was Europe wide. The same as they would squeal if they had a cap on non English players they were allowed to sign. Just about had enough of our 'beautiful game at the moment. Couldn't even be bother to watch the world cup games last night. Watched a film instead. All I see now are cheats, liars, prima donnas and corruption. You even have to question the result of the opening game in Brazil![/p][/quote]Not so sure on failing to dominate Europe - Man U won it twice and Liverpool and Chelsea have also won it . We also have had an all English final and on numerous occassions had 2 or 3 of the semi finalists . OK it has shifted a bit back to Spain and Germany - but like us that won't last forever - especially if most of their stars head over here or Bayern continue to operate in a one team league signing anyone from their rivals who is half decent . I do agree things need to change at the top to enhance football throughout the country including our disaterous national side - limiting squads and increasing home grown quotes is part of it (and making home grown actually mean home grown!) - but loans need to stay as they are vital to young players and lower league clubs . The idea we would all survive without them is total nonsence - yes we could name teams - but the quality we deteriate dramtically only widening the gap more and more . Its like saying transfer should be banned and we can only use our youth products - Yes we would have a team but would they compete like our actual team? . Bedwell N.Thompson Oakley De Costa Jones Ferguson L.Thompson Walsh Storey Waldon Francis . Fancy watching that next season?[/p][/quote]Why is it nonsense to say lower division clubs could survive without loans? We would all be in the same boat wouldn't we? In fact, it might make the playing field more even. "Who you know" would be less important. It's all very well liking the idea of systematic use of the loan system when we have a cosy relationship with a big club, but what if we were at the bottom of the pecking order and nobody wanted us to have their players? How would we all feel about that if other clubs were gaining an advantage on us? These things go in cycles. Sherwood has gone from Spurs. Power won't be with the Town for ever. I could just about stomach last season's arrangement as a way of getting us through another year. For the good of the game, we have to get back to a system where players earn their moves to top clubs by proving themselves. Then these players would still be available to clubs like us as they progress but without the sham of them being on the books of big clubs hoping to cash in on their possible future value. Oi Den!
  • Score: 1

9:39am Fri 27 Jun 14

umpcah says...

London Red wrote:
Since 1950 wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
LydiardRED67 wrote: Perhaps I have the wrong end of the stick, but my interpretation of a feeder club is when you have a reguler supply of your own good youngsters and you agree a deal with one particular club that they will have first refusal at whatever price. Not hat I particularly like the deal we had with Spurs mind you. At the time I thought it was a means to an end for one season, however it seems that if Sherwood had remained in post, the arrangement woud have continued. As I have said before, remove the loan sysytem and this isn't an issue.
That's my interpretation too. Our situation seems to be that of a reverse feeder club. I wouldn't go quite as far as removing the loan system altogether, as it can serve a useful purpose in emergencies, but it needs a radical overhaul. Limit the size of squads allowed in the top two divisions, so that the big clubs can't hog redundant players who would otherwise be finding their own level in the game by hard work and gradual progress. Either that or they have their own reserve leagues where they can compete for first team places. The lower divisions can survive comfortably without them. Clubs would have a truer identity and the best teams would come out on top. Lydiard, shall we build a little bunker for two and get a couple of tin hats for when we need to come out for food?
Den. I agree with your concept of limiting the size of squads for the top two leagues. It would never happen though. The 'greed league' was introduced to make English clubs dominant in Europe. It has largely failed of course and totally ruined our national game in the process. The greed league would soon squeal 'level playing field' if they had a cap placed on their squad numbers unless it was Europe wide. The same as they would squeal if they had a cap on non English players they were allowed to sign. Just about had enough of our 'beautiful game at the moment. Couldn't even be bother to watch the world cup games last night. Watched a film instead. All I see now are cheats, liars, prima donnas and corruption. You even have to question the result of the opening game in Brazil!
Not so sure on failing to dominate Europe - Man U won it twice and Liverpool and Chelsea have also won it
.
We also have had an all English final and on numerous occassions had 2 or 3 of the semi finalists
.
OK it has shifted a bit back to Spain and Germany - but like us that won't last forever - especially if most of their stars head over here or Bayern continue to operate in a one team league signing anyone from their rivals who is half decent
.
I do agree things need to change at the top to enhance football throughout the country including our disaterous national side - limiting squads and increasing home grown quotes is part of it (and making home grown actually mean home grown!) - but loans need to stay as they are vital to young players and lower league clubs
.
The idea we would all survive without them is total nonsence - yes we could name teams - but the quality we deteriate dramtically only widening the gap more and more
.
Its like saying transfer should be banned and we can only use our youth products - Yes we would have a team but would they compete like our actual team?
.
Bedwell
N.Thompson Oakley De Costa Jones
Ferguson L.Thompson Walsh
Storey Waldon Francis
.
Fancy watching that next season?
Fancy watching that next season? No has got to be the answer but we watched a similar team in the early 60s !
[quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Since 1950[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LydiardRED67[/bold] wrote: Perhaps I have the wrong end of the stick, but my interpretation of a feeder club is when you have a reguler supply of your own good youngsters and you agree a deal with one particular club that they will have first refusal at whatever price. Not hat I particularly like the deal we had with Spurs mind you. At the time I thought it was a means to an end for one season, however it seems that if Sherwood had remained in post, the arrangement woud have continued. As I have said before, remove the loan sysytem and this isn't an issue.[/p][/quote]That's my interpretation too. Our situation seems to be that of a reverse feeder club. I wouldn't go quite as far as removing the loan system altogether, as it can serve a useful purpose in emergencies, but it needs a radical overhaul. Limit the size of squads allowed in the top two divisions, so that the big clubs can't hog redundant players who would otherwise be finding their own level in the game by hard work and gradual progress. Either that or they have their own reserve leagues where they can compete for first team places. The lower divisions can survive comfortably without them. Clubs would have a truer identity and the best teams would come out on top. Lydiard, shall we build a little bunker for two and get a couple of tin hats for when we need to come out for food?[/p][/quote]Den. I agree with your concept of limiting the size of squads for the top two leagues. It would never happen though. The 'greed league' was introduced to make English clubs dominant in Europe. It has largely failed of course and totally ruined our national game in the process. The greed league would soon squeal 'level playing field' if they had a cap placed on their squad numbers unless it was Europe wide. The same as they would squeal if they had a cap on non English players they were allowed to sign. Just about had enough of our 'beautiful game at the moment. Couldn't even be bother to watch the world cup games last night. Watched a film instead. All I see now are cheats, liars, prima donnas and corruption. You even have to question the result of the opening game in Brazil![/p][/quote]Not so sure on failing to dominate Europe - Man U won it twice and Liverpool and Chelsea have also won it . We also have had an all English final and on numerous occassions had 2 or 3 of the semi finalists . OK it has shifted a bit back to Spain and Germany - but like us that won't last forever - especially if most of their stars head over here or Bayern continue to operate in a one team league signing anyone from their rivals who is half decent . I do agree things need to change at the top to enhance football throughout the country including our disaterous national side - limiting squads and increasing home grown quotes is part of it (and making home grown actually mean home grown!) - but loans need to stay as they are vital to young players and lower league clubs . The idea we would all survive without them is total nonsence - yes we could name teams - but the quality we deteriate dramtically only widening the gap more and more . Its like saying transfer should be banned and we can only use our youth products - Yes we would have a team but would they compete like our actual team? . Bedwell N.Thompson Oakley De Costa Jones Ferguson L.Thompson Walsh Storey Waldon Francis . Fancy watching that next season?[/p][/quote]Fancy watching that next season? No has got to be the answer but we watched a similar team in the early 60s ! [ and rubbed our eyes in disbelief ! ] umpcah
  • Score: 0

9:50am Fri 27 Jun 14

Wilesy says...

LeGod wrote:
I think alot of us knew Jed was a professional Bull******r and now it has come out in the open he has been shown up for what he really is and was planning to do to our club which was ro milk it dry and disappear.
I've said all along the guy is not straight and i wonder what else he has done we dont know about.
Lets get this fiasco out the way and move on. I hope Jed has to end up paying all the costs of this case and it destroys him.
His attempts to go into other clubs has surely now been ended as well after this as no one will touch him with a barge pole as the other clubs that did reject him sussed him out for what he really is a fly by night crook.
Good luck LP in the rest of the case and lets hope the judge decides in your favour.
I think it is it more a case of a lot 'suspected' rather than 'knew' and I always thought it a bit disappointing that quite a few were slating Jed without any actual evidence of wrong doing, and basically just believing Fredi's comments, who at the time came across as having a personal grudge, a bit like a better written and less crass version of Grim's views on KMac :-) Personally I always like to look on things positively until the evidence (as it does now) indicates otherwise.

Some work in the early days was good such as the club shop revamp and the MyWorld online ticketing. Later on the additional seating for the Chelsea game.

Call it naive or a poor judge of character but I spoke to him several times in the early days and found him fine. The presentations that were made by Murrall and Isaacs were well done and seemed credible although the proof of the pudding there was whether anything would come to fruition.

9 months on from those presentations though and of course the true picture has been revealed.

In my opinion he lost all credibility before this following the lack of progress on the actions in the presentations and his walking away in the first place - Calne training centre, Stratton Bank roof, Town End fag hut, Murrall and McCrory staying to see us into the Championship etc etc in fact most of what was presented actually never came true.

And now the judge has basically accused him of being dishonest and lying under oath, his reputation is at rock bottom. I'm surprised that this actually went to court, surely he must have realised that he would come out of this looking the exact oppositie of a fit and proper owner and that no football club will touch him with a barge pole from now on?

A lesson learnt for Lee Power though - if you spend a load of dosh to buy a club get it in writing that you actually own it. Basics!

As for being the Spurs feeder club, I had no problem with building a relationship with Spurs, it would only be a one-way relationship I can't see Spurs coming in for any of our players. So what if we get a few season long loans in? 'Permanent' players don't stay long at a club these days anyway.
[quote][p][bold]LeGod[/bold] wrote: I think alot of us knew Jed was a professional Bull******r and now it has come out in the open he has been shown up for what he really is and was planning to do to our club which was ro milk it dry and disappear. I've said all along the guy is not straight and i wonder what else he has done we dont know about. Lets get this fiasco out the way and move on. I hope Jed has to end up paying all the costs of this case and it destroys him. His attempts to go into other clubs has surely now been ended as well after this as no one will touch him with a barge pole as the other clubs that did reject him sussed him out for what he really is a fly by night crook. Good luck LP in the rest of the case and lets hope the judge decides in your favour.[/p][/quote]I think it is it more a case of a lot 'suspected' rather than 'knew' and I always thought it a bit disappointing that quite a few were slating Jed without any actual evidence of wrong doing, and basically just believing Fredi's comments, who at the time came across as having a personal grudge, a bit like a better written and less crass version of Grim's views on KMac :-) Personally I always like to look on things positively until the evidence (as it does now) indicates otherwise. Some work in the early days was good such as the club shop revamp and the MyWorld online ticketing. Later on the additional seating for the Chelsea game. Call it naive or a poor judge of character but I spoke to him several times in the early days and found him fine. The presentations that were made by Murrall and Isaacs were well done and seemed credible although the proof of the pudding there was whether anything would come to fruition. 9 months on from those presentations though and of course the true picture has been revealed. In my opinion he lost all credibility before this following the lack of progress on the actions in the presentations and his walking away in the first place - Calne training centre, Stratton Bank roof, Town End fag hut, Murrall and McCrory staying to see us into the Championship etc etc in fact most of what was presented actually never came true. And now the judge has basically accused him of being dishonest and lying under oath, his reputation is at rock bottom. I'm surprised that this actually went to court, surely he must have realised that he would come out of this looking the exact oppositie of a fit and proper owner and that no football club will touch him with a barge pole from now on? A lesson learnt for Lee Power though - if you spend a load of dosh to buy a club get it in writing that you actually own it. Basics! As for being the Spurs feeder club, I had no problem with building a relationship with Spurs, it would only be a one-way relationship I can't see Spurs coming in for any of our players. So what if we get a few season long loans in? 'Permanent' players don't stay long at a club these days anyway. Wilesy
  • Score: 4

9:52am Fri 27 Jun 14

the wizard says...

Den, G'morning young man. You have just said very much the same as myself a couple of days ago when all this started again, so I completely agree. Its cheap childish spite and I think with this Judge he has bitten off more than he can chew. Even if he looses(please God) I think he is so pig headed he will launch an appeal.
In fairness to LP, I think most of us thought he was a bit, I dunno, not quite what we wanted, given we had been spoilt with Fitton/Black & Co. The fact is he is a football man first and a business man second, and that is in no way an insult. He has trusted others implicitly and that was his downfall. He deserves better. He asked us to judge him not over one season, but to look back over five years. I think given what he has had to contend with this last season he and Cooper have done a magnificent job, especially given all of this going on behind the scenes. I can only wish Power good things, and maybe he hasn't got millions, but then again, he has never said that he has. I do think he is the type of guy we want here, because truth speaks for itself louder than any other words spoken by others. I'm not worried about Spurs as that link is no more, and if there is a tie up with Southampton, well they have always conducted themselves properly, so no worries there. I agree with much of what LR has written this morning as well, but my main hope and desire is now, that Power can carry on here gradually building something which is straight, true and wholesome and above all sustainable. Should he succeed with that then he will have achieved more than those who have gone before him, and he will have gone from being the most unlikely to the most successful and I'll welcome that with open arms. What ever is said though there is one dangerous situation in all of this, the Judge has to follow the law, and the legality of it all may be that the abhorrent being from Luton may still legally through some loop hole own the club, and that will be a mis carriage of justice if there ever was . I severely do not want to go there. Attendances will fall for sure, and with it the club will find itself on skid row, let us all hope that can be avoided at all costs.
Den, G'morning young man. You have just said very much the same as myself a couple of days ago when all this started again, so I completely agree. Its cheap childish spite and I think with this Judge he has bitten off more than he can chew. Even if he looses(please God) I think he is so pig headed he will launch an appeal. In fairness to LP, I think most of us thought he was a bit, I dunno, not quite what we wanted, given we had been spoilt with Fitton/Black & Co. The fact is he is a football man first and a business man second, and that is in no way an insult. He has trusted others implicitly and that was his downfall. He deserves better. He asked us to judge him not over one season, but to look back over five years. I think given what he has had to contend with this last season he and Cooper have done a magnificent job, especially given all of this going on behind the scenes. I can only wish Power good things, and maybe he hasn't got millions, but then again, he has never said that he has. I do think he is the type of guy we want here, because truth speaks for itself louder than any other words spoken by others. I'm not worried about Spurs as that link is no more, and if there is a tie up with Southampton, well they have always conducted themselves properly, so no worries there. I agree with much of what LR has written this morning as well, but my main hope and desire is now, that Power can carry on here gradually building something which is straight, true and wholesome and above all sustainable. Should he succeed with that then he will have achieved more than those who have gone before him, and he will have gone from being the most unlikely to the most successful and I'll welcome that with open arms. What ever is said though there is one dangerous situation in all of this, the Judge has to follow the law, and the legality of it all may be that the abhorrent being from Luton may still legally through some loop hole own the club, and that will be a mis carriage of justice if there ever was . I severely do not want to go there. Attendances will fall for sure, and with it the club will find itself on skid row, let us all hope that can be avoided at all costs. the wizard
  • Score: 7

9:59am Fri 27 Jun 14

Stilloyal says...

To Jeds credit he wants to be an M.P with EDL . haha its only a joke folks .
To Jeds credit he wants to be an M.P with EDL . haha its only a joke folks . Stilloyal
  • Score: 1

10:12am Fri 27 Jun 14

Robinonfire says...

Jed or Power whoever.. sell up and get someone with real money to buy and run the club.

Its all a big joke.
Jed or Power whoever.. sell up and get someone with real money to buy and run the club. Its all a big joke. Robinonfire
  • Score: -8

10:12am Fri 27 Jun 14

Stilloyal says...

Always said Jed was a richard and now you all agree. I hope sincerely that the judge decides the right way and the chances are he will. There is no room for people like Jedward in any sport especially football and especially not STFC..
I hope the F.A / F.L bring him to book about the match fixing allegations and find a way to ban him from football for life.
Always said Jed was a richard and now you all agree. I hope sincerely that the judge decides the right way and the chances are he will. There is no room for people like Jedward in any sport especially football and especially not STFC.. I hope the F.A / F.L bring him to book about the match fixing allegations and find a way to ban him from football for life. Stilloyal
  • Score: 3

10:15am Fri 27 Jun 14

Redgollum says...

umpcah wrote:
London Red wrote:
Since 1950 wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
LydiardRED67 wrote: Perhaps I have the wrong end of the stick, but my interpretation of a feeder club is when you have a reguler supply of your own good youngsters and you agree a deal with one particular club that they will have first refusal at whatever price. Not hat I particularly like the deal we had with Spurs mind you. At the time I thought it was a means to an end for one season, however it seems that if Sherwood had remained in post, the arrangement woud have continued. As I have said before, remove the loan sysytem and this isn't an issue.
That's my interpretation too. Our situation seems to be that of a reverse feeder club. I wouldn't go quite as far as removing the loan system altogether, as it can serve a useful purpose in emergencies, but it needs a radical overhaul. Limit the size of squads allowed in the top two divisions, so that the big clubs can't hog redundant players who would otherwise be finding their own level in the game by hard work and gradual progress. Either that or they have their own reserve leagues where they can compete for first team places. The lower divisions can survive comfortably without them. Clubs would have a truer identity and the best teams would come out on top. Lydiard, shall we build a little bunker for two and get a couple of tin hats for when we need to come out for food?
Den. I agree with your concept of limiting the size of squads for the top two leagues. It would never happen though. The 'greed league' was introduced to make English clubs dominant in Europe. It has largely failed of course and totally ruined our national game in the process. The greed league would soon squeal 'level playing field' if they had a cap placed on their squad numbers unless it was Europe wide. The same as they would squeal if they had a cap on non English players they were allowed to sign. Just about had enough of our 'beautiful game at the moment. Couldn't even be bother to watch the world cup games last night. Watched a film instead. All I see now are cheats, liars, prima donnas and corruption. You even have to question the result of the opening game in Brazil!
Not so sure on failing to dominate Europe - Man U won it twice and Liverpool and Chelsea have also won it
.
We also have had an all English final and on numerous occassions had 2 or 3 of the semi finalists
.
OK it has shifted a bit back to Spain and Germany - but like us that won't last forever - especially if most of their stars head over here or Bayern continue to operate in a one team league signing anyone from their rivals who is half decent
.
I do agree things need to change at the top to enhance football throughout the country including our disaterous national side - limiting squads and increasing home grown quotes is part of it (and making home grown actually mean home grown!) - but loans need to stay as they are vital to young players and lower league clubs
.
The idea we would all survive without them is total nonsence - yes we could name teams - but the quality we deteriate dramtically only widening the gap more and more
.
Its like saying transfer should be banned and we can only use our youth products - Yes we would have a team but would they compete like our actual team?
.
Bedwell
N.Thompson Oakley De Costa Jones
Ferguson L.Thompson Walsh
Storey Waldon Francis
.
Fancy watching that next season?
Fancy watching that next season? No has got to be the answer but we watched a similar team in the early 60s !
I Can't remember Danny Williams signing many loan players. We had a manager that could make some astute buys in the transfer market. Penman, Butler, Harland, Burrows, McHale, Noble etc. But we knew what cash we had to spend & budgeted accordingly.
As for the youth policy, I would support that if every club outside the Premiership had to do it.
[quote][p][bold]umpcah[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Since 1950[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LydiardRED67[/bold] wrote: Perhaps I have the wrong end of the stick, but my interpretation of a feeder club is when you have a reguler supply of your own good youngsters and you agree a deal with one particular club that they will have first refusal at whatever price. Not hat I particularly like the deal we had with Spurs mind you. At the time I thought it was a means to an end for one season, however it seems that if Sherwood had remained in post, the arrangement woud have continued. As I have said before, remove the loan sysytem and this isn't an issue.[/p][/quote]That's my interpretation too. Our situation seems to be that of a reverse feeder club. I wouldn't go quite as far as removing the loan system altogether, as it can serve a useful purpose in emergencies, but it needs a radical overhaul. Limit the size of squads allowed in the top two divisions, so that the big clubs can't hog redundant players who would otherwise be finding their own level in the game by hard work and gradual progress. Either that or they have their own reserve leagues where they can compete for first team places. The lower divisions can survive comfortably without them. Clubs would have a truer identity and the best teams would come out on top. Lydiard, shall we build a little bunker for two and get a couple of tin hats for when we need to come out for food?[/p][/quote]Den. I agree with your concept of limiting the size of squads for the top two leagues. It would never happen though. The 'greed league' was introduced to make English clubs dominant in Europe. It has largely failed of course and totally ruined our national game in the process. The greed league would soon squeal 'level playing field' if they had a cap placed on their squad numbers unless it was Europe wide. The same as they would squeal if they had a cap on non English players they were allowed to sign. Just about had enough of our 'beautiful game at the moment. Couldn't even be bother to watch the world cup games last night. Watched a film instead. All I see now are cheats, liars, prima donnas and corruption. You even have to question the result of the opening game in Brazil![/p][/quote]Not so sure on failing to dominate Europe - Man U won it twice and Liverpool and Chelsea have also won it . We also have had an all English final and on numerous occassions had 2 or 3 of the semi finalists . OK it has shifted a bit back to Spain and Germany - but like us that won't last forever - especially if most of their stars head over here or Bayern continue to operate in a one team league signing anyone from their rivals who is half decent . I do agree things need to change at the top to enhance football throughout the country including our disaterous national side - limiting squads and increasing home grown quotes is part of it (and making home grown actually mean home grown!) - but loans need to stay as they are vital to young players and lower league clubs . The idea we would all survive without them is total nonsence - yes we could name teams - but the quality we deteriate dramtically only widening the gap more and more . Its like saying transfer should be banned and we can only use our youth products - Yes we would have a team but would they compete like our actual team? . Bedwell N.Thompson Oakley De Costa Jones Ferguson L.Thompson Walsh Storey Waldon Francis . Fancy watching that next season?[/p][/quote]Fancy watching that next season? No has got to be the answer but we watched a similar team in the early 60s ! [ and rubbed our eyes in disbelief ! ][/p][/quote]I Can't remember Danny Williams signing many loan players. We had a manager that could make some astute buys in the transfer market. Penman, Butler, Harland, Burrows, McHale, Noble etc. But we knew what cash we had to spend & budgeted accordingly. As for the youth policy, I would support that if every club outside the Premiership had to do it. Redgollum
  • Score: 3

10:28am Fri 27 Jun 14

TJG2907 says...

From all that's happened the last couple of days is that Jed has come across in a very bad light and he's desperately trying to lie and make sure he keeps hold of his cash cow and can take further money. As in a previous article he stole money and accused us of match fixing so we can all go down with him. And to think I liked the man when he stepped in and brought us. I wonder If he has any money atall
From all that's happened the last couple of days is that Jed has come across in a very bad light and he's desperately trying to lie and make sure he keeps hold of his cash cow and can take further money. As in a previous article he stole money and accused us of match fixing so we can all go down with him. And to think I liked the man when he stepped in and brought us. I wonder If he has any money atall TJG2907
  • Score: 1

10:40am Fri 27 Jun 14

oz ashes says...

Robinonfire wrote:
Jed or Power whoever.. sell up and get someone with real money to buy and run the club.

Its all a big joke.
so in other words you want another andrew black to pump in 12 mill then eff off after 5 years and leave us up the shi** again
[quote][p][bold]Robinonfire[/bold] wrote: Jed or Power whoever.. sell up and get someone with real money to buy and run the club. Its all a big joke.[/p][/quote]so in other words you want another andrew black to pump in 12 mill then eff off after 5 years and leave us up the shi** again oz ashes
  • Score: 2

10:54am Fri 27 Jun 14

the wizard says...

TJG2907 wrote:
From all that's happened the last couple of days is that Jed has come across in a very bad light and he's desperately trying to lie and make sure he keeps hold of his cash cow and can take further money. As in a previous article he stole money and accused us of match fixing so we can all go down with him. And to think I liked the man when he stepped in and brought us. I wonder If he has any money atall
Probably only has money as long as he has an income from somewhere like a football club. Funny how he has had several push backs from other clubs and then comes knocking on our door once more. I'd like to know the details of the £300k which Power says is missing from the club. Maybe Jed wants a pound so he can buy another club !
[quote][p][bold]TJG2907[/bold] wrote: From all that's happened the last couple of days is that Jed has come across in a very bad light and he's desperately trying to lie and make sure he keeps hold of his cash cow and can take further money. As in a previous article he stole money and accused us of match fixing so we can all go down with him. And to think I liked the man when he stepped in and brought us. I wonder If he has any money atall[/p][/quote]Probably only has money as long as he has an income from somewhere like a football club. Funny how he has had several push backs from other clubs and then comes knocking on our door once more. I'd like to know the details of the £300k which Power says is missing from the club. Maybe Jed wants a pound so he can buy another club ! the wizard
  • Score: 1

11:07am Fri 27 Jun 14

mug? says...

This seems a lot like the Bill Power situation. You have to question the intelligence of these people.

I'm pretty sure a proper Businessman, say Andrew Black would have all the paper work in order to make sure there is no doubt as to who owns the club, when he brought and when he sold. So there is no comeback on him if something goes wrong after selling.

If I go to the supermarket and buy some batteries they give me a receipt which clearly shows I am the owner of those batteries. The supermarket keep a carbon copy of that receipt. If a security guard stops me on the way out and says "have you paid for those batteries sir?" I can say "yes and I have the necessary paper work to prove it." If I then make a bomb with those batteries and the serial numbers are traced back to the supermarket I bought them from, that supermarket is also covered as they can say look: we sold them to mug? we had nothing to do with building that bomb.

I'm getting a bit fed up with football now. All the diving and cheating at the world cup, players tripping on a blade of grass and rolling about on the floor asking for a dummy. Talented players at that who have enough skill that they don't need to cheat. If someone bites me (I have been bitten by my sister - I never worked that one out) the last thing going through my mind would be to fall to the floor like a sack of s*** and make myself even more vulnerable to a madman.

Foreign teams are improving ten fold while the England team gets worse and worse and worse.

I'm not in the least bit excited about the forthcoming season with Swindon Town. No speculation from the adver about players coming in. I know it's usually bull but it makes things more interesting and exciting.

I still have issues with Power, the way he's put a ban on the clubs only sizeable marketing outlook from reporting/speculatin
g on the club so they are too scared to write anything.

I predict mid table next season as long as there isn't a mass exodus of players and no incoming players, with a struggle at the start of the season followed by a bit of form for a comfortable mid table finish.

If there are some incoming players, I may change my mind :-)
This seems a lot like the Bill Power situation. You have to question the intelligence of these people. I'm pretty sure a proper Businessman, say Andrew Black would have all the paper work in order to make sure there is no doubt as to who owns the club, when he brought and when he sold. So there is no comeback on him if something goes wrong after selling. If I go to the supermarket and buy some batteries they give me a receipt which clearly shows I am the owner of those batteries. The supermarket keep a carbon copy of that receipt. If a security guard stops me on the way out and says "have you paid for those batteries sir?" I can say "yes and I have the necessary paper work to prove it." If I then make a bomb with those batteries and the serial numbers are traced back to the supermarket I bought them from, that supermarket is also covered as they can say look: we sold them to mug? we had nothing to do with building that bomb. I'm getting a bit fed up with football now. All the diving and cheating at the world cup, players tripping on a blade of grass and rolling about on the floor asking for a dummy. Talented players at that who have enough skill that they don't need to cheat. If someone bites me (I have been bitten by my sister - I never worked that one out) the last thing going through my mind would be to fall to the floor like a sack of s*** and make myself even more vulnerable to a madman. Foreign teams are improving ten fold while the England team gets worse and worse and worse. I'm not in the least bit excited about the forthcoming season with Swindon Town. No speculation from the adver about players coming in. I know it's usually bull but it makes things more interesting and exciting. I still have issues with Power, the way he's put a ban on the clubs only sizeable marketing outlook from reporting/speculatin g on the club so they are too scared to write anything. I predict mid table next season as long as there isn't a mass exodus of players and no incoming players, with a struggle at the start of the season followed by a bit of form for a comfortable mid table finish. If there are some incoming players, I may change my mind :-) mug?
  • Score: 1

11:12am Fri 27 Jun 14

LydiardRED67 says...

Oi Den! wrote:
LydiardRED67 wrote:
Perhaps I have the wrong end of the stick, but my interpretation of a feeder club is when you have a reguler supply of your own good youngsters and you agree a deal with one particular club that they will have first refusal at whatever price.

Not hat I particularly like the deal we had with Spurs mind you. At the time I thought it was a means to an end for one season, however it seems that if Sherwood had remained in post, the arrangement woud have continued.

As I have said before, remove the loan sysytem and this isn't an issue.
That's my interpretation too. Our situation seems to be that of a reverse feeder club.

I wouldn't go quite as far as removing the loan system altogether, as it can serve a useful purpose in emergencies, but it needs a radical overhaul. Limit the size of squads allowed in the top two divisions, so that the big clubs can't hog redundant players who would otherwise be finding their own level in the game by hard work and gradual progress. Either that or they have their own reserve leagues where they can compete for first team places. The lower divisions can survive comfortably without them. Clubs would have a truer identity and the best teams would come out on top.

Lydiard, shall we build a little bunker for two and get a couple of tin hats for when we need to come out for food?
Good call Den, I think we'll need more than tin hats though.........
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LydiardRED67[/bold] wrote: Perhaps I have the wrong end of the stick, but my interpretation of a feeder club is when you have a reguler supply of your own good youngsters and you agree a deal with one particular club that they will have first refusal at whatever price. Not hat I particularly like the deal we had with Spurs mind you. At the time I thought it was a means to an end for one season, however it seems that if Sherwood had remained in post, the arrangement woud have continued. As I have said before, remove the loan sysytem and this isn't an issue.[/p][/quote]That's my interpretation too. Our situation seems to be that of a reverse feeder club. I wouldn't go quite as far as removing the loan system altogether, as it can serve a useful purpose in emergencies, but it needs a radical overhaul. Limit the size of squads allowed in the top two divisions, so that the big clubs can't hog redundant players who would otherwise be finding their own level in the game by hard work and gradual progress. Either that or they have their own reserve leagues where they can compete for first team places. The lower divisions can survive comfortably without them. Clubs would have a truer identity and the best teams would come out on top. Lydiard, shall we build a little bunker for two and get a couple of tin hats for when we need to come out for food?[/p][/quote]Good call Den, I think we'll need more than tin hats though......... LydiardRED67
  • Score: 0

11:17am Fri 27 Jun 14

Oi Den! says...

oz ashes wrote:
Robinonfire wrote:
Jed or Power whoever.. sell up and get someone with real money to buy and run the club.

Its all a big joke.
so in other words you want another andrew black to pump in 12 mill then eff off after 5 years and leave us up the shi** again
He didn't leave us in the sh*t. He didn't want his money back and he left behind what I'm sure was one of the healthiest clubs in lower division football. It's just a shame his chairman made such a ricketts of selling it for him. Nobody would have been criticising Black if Patey had found a credible buyer.
[quote][p][bold]oz ashes[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Robinonfire[/bold] wrote: Jed or Power whoever.. sell up and get someone with real money to buy and run the club. Its all a big joke.[/p][/quote]so in other words you want another andrew black to pump in 12 mill then eff off after 5 years and leave us up the shi** again[/p][/quote]He didn't leave us in the sh*t. He didn't want his money back and he left behind what I'm sure was one of the healthiest clubs in lower division football. It's just a shame his chairman made such a ricketts of selling it for him. Nobody would have been criticising Black if Patey had found a credible buyer. Oi Den!
  • Score: -1

11:29am Fri 27 Jun 14

Since 1950 says...

Oi Den! wrote:
oz ashes wrote:
Robinonfire wrote:
Jed or Power whoever.. sell up and get someone with real money to buy and run the club.

Its all a big joke.
so in other words you want another andrew black to pump in 12 mill then eff off after 5 years and leave us up the shi** again
He didn't leave us in the sh*t. He didn't want his money back and he left behind what I'm sure was one of the healthiest clubs in lower division football. It's just a shame his chairman made such a ricketts of selling it for him. Nobody would have been criticising Black if Patey had found a credible buyer.
Den. Patey, or Sir Bill to give him his rightful title, was brought in by Black for two reasons. Get rid of Di Canio and get shot of the club.
He got rid of Di Canio by selling Ritchie behind his back at half the market rate. Di Canio and Co. walked thus saving compo. He then sold the club to the first person to come along with a quid in their hand regardless of their motives or intensions. Black is not blameless in all this despite the £ millions he put into the club. In my view of course.
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]oz ashes[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Robinonfire[/bold] wrote: Jed or Power whoever.. sell up and get someone with real money to buy and run the club. Its all a big joke.[/p][/quote]so in other words you want another andrew black to pump in 12 mill then eff off after 5 years and leave us up the shi** again[/p][/quote]He didn't leave us in the sh*t. He didn't want his money back and he left behind what I'm sure was one of the healthiest clubs in lower division football. It's just a shame his chairman made such a ricketts of selling it for him. Nobody would have been criticising Black if Patey had found a credible buyer.[/p][/quote]Den. Patey, or Sir Bill to give him his rightful title, was brought in by Black for two reasons. Get rid of Di Canio and get shot of the club. He got rid of Di Canio by selling Ritchie behind his back at half the market rate. Di Canio and Co. walked thus saving compo. He then sold the club to the first person to come along with a quid in their hand regardless of their motives or intensions. Black is not blameless in all this despite the £ millions he put into the club. In my view of course. Since 1950
  • Score: 4

11:30am Fri 27 Jun 14

LydiardRED67 says...

London Red wrote:
Since 1950 wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
LydiardRED67 wrote: Perhaps I have the wrong end of the stick, but my interpretation of a feeder club is when you have a reguler supply of your own good youngsters and you agree a deal with one particular club that they will have first refusal at whatever price. Not hat I particularly like the deal we had with Spurs mind you. At the time I thought it was a means to an end for one season, however it seems that if Sherwood had remained in post, the arrangement woud have continued. As I have said before, remove the loan sysytem and this isn't an issue.
That's my interpretation too. Our situation seems to be that of a reverse feeder club. I wouldn't go quite as far as removing the loan system altogether, as it can serve a useful purpose in emergencies, but it needs a radical overhaul. Limit the size of squads allowed in the top two divisions, so that the big clubs can't hog redundant players who would otherwise be finding their own level in the game by hard work and gradual progress. Either that or they have their own reserve leagues where they can compete for first team places. The lower divisions can survive comfortably without them. Clubs would have a truer identity and the best teams would come out on top. Lydiard, shall we build a little bunker for two and get a couple of tin hats for when we need to come out for food?
Den. I agree with your concept of limiting the size of squads for the top two leagues. It would never happen though. The 'greed league' was introduced to make English clubs dominant in Europe. It has largely failed of course and totally ruined our national game in the process. The greed league would soon squeal 'level playing field' if they had a cap placed on their squad numbers unless it was Europe wide. The same as they would squeal if they had a cap on non English players they were allowed to sign. Just about had enough of our 'beautiful game at the moment. Couldn't even be bother to watch the world cup games last night. Watched a film instead. All I see now are cheats, liars, prima donnas and corruption. You even have to question the result of the opening game in Brazil!
Not so sure on failing to dominate Europe - Man U won it twice and Liverpool and Chelsea have also won it
.
We also have had an all English final and on numerous occassions had 2 or 3 of the semi finalists
.
OK it has shifted a bit back to Spain and Germany - but like us that won't last forever - especially if most of their stars head over here or Bayern continue to operate in a one team league signing anyone from their rivals who is half decent
.
I do agree things need to change at the top to enhance football throughout the country including our disaterous national side - limiting squads and increasing home grown quotes is part of it (and making home grown actually mean home grown!) - but loans need to stay as they are vital to young players and lower league clubs
.
The idea we would all survive without them is total nonsence - yes we could name teams - but the quality we deteriate dramtically only widening the gap more and more
.
Its like saying transfer should be banned and we can only use our youth products - Yes we would have a team but would they compete like our actual team?
.
Bedwell
N.Thompson Oakley De Costa Jones
Ferguson L.Thompson Walsh
Storey Waldon Francis
.
Fancy watching that next season?
I agree that last season we needed the loans, but that was because we are under the current system where loans are the main option. The most effective loan in our division is a goalscorer. You yourself quite rightly praised the lad from Wolves who was loaned to Tranmere when they were top of the league. Tranmere benefitted from Wolves payroll. We had among many others Stephens from Southampton who got our season back on track. We benefitted from Southampton's payroll.

What myself and (I think) Den are proposing is that if there is no loan system, everyone is the same boat and after a few season young talent will remain at clubs until they are established. Yes they may then move on, but they are pro footballers who will command a proper fee.

In my opinion it is not "nonsense" to want to end a system that stifles english talent by effectively forcing vast swages of young players into reserve football only to be sent out from one team to another for one month periods to "gain match fitness and toughen up".

It is wrong and needs to change
[quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Since 1950[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LydiardRED67[/bold] wrote: Perhaps I have the wrong end of the stick, but my interpretation of a feeder club is when you have a reguler supply of your own good youngsters and you agree a deal with one particular club that they will have first refusal at whatever price. Not hat I particularly like the deal we had with Spurs mind you. At the time I thought it was a means to an end for one season, however it seems that if Sherwood had remained in post, the arrangement woud have continued. As I have said before, remove the loan sysytem and this isn't an issue.[/p][/quote]That's my interpretation too. Our situation seems to be that of a reverse feeder club. I wouldn't go quite as far as removing the loan system altogether, as it can serve a useful purpose in emergencies, but it needs a radical overhaul. Limit the size of squads allowed in the top two divisions, so that the big clubs can't hog redundant players who would otherwise be finding their own level in the game by hard work and gradual progress. Either that or they have their own reserve leagues where they can compete for first team places. The lower divisions can survive comfortably without them. Clubs would have a truer identity and the best teams would come out on top. Lydiard, shall we build a little bunker for two and get a couple of tin hats for when we need to come out for food?[/p][/quote]Den. I agree with your concept of limiting the size of squads for the top two leagues. It would never happen though. The 'greed league' was introduced to make English clubs dominant in Europe. It has largely failed of course and totally ruined our national game in the process. The greed league would soon squeal 'level playing field' if they had a cap placed on their squad numbers unless it was Europe wide. The same as they would squeal if they had a cap on non English players they were allowed to sign. Just about had enough of our 'beautiful game at the moment. Couldn't even be bother to watch the world cup games last night. Watched a film instead. All I see now are cheats, liars, prima donnas and corruption. You even have to question the result of the opening game in Brazil![/p][/quote]Not so sure on failing to dominate Europe - Man U won it twice and Liverpool and Chelsea have also won it . We also have had an all English final and on numerous occassions had 2 or 3 of the semi finalists . OK it has shifted a bit back to Spain and Germany - but like us that won't last forever - especially if most of their stars head over here or Bayern continue to operate in a one team league signing anyone from their rivals who is half decent . I do agree things need to change at the top to enhance football throughout the country including our disaterous national side - limiting squads and increasing home grown quotes is part of it (and making home grown actually mean home grown!) - but loans need to stay as they are vital to young players and lower league clubs . The idea we would all survive without them is total nonsence - yes we could name teams - but the quality we deteriate dramtically only widening the gap more and more . Its like saying transfer should be banned and we can only use our youth products - Yes we would have a team but would they compete like our actual team? . Bedwell N.Thompson Oakley De Costa Jones Ferguson L.Thompson Walsh Storey Waldon Francis . Fancy watching that next season?[/p][/quote]I agree that last season we needed the loans, but that was because we are under the current system where loans are the main option. The most effective loan in our division is a goalscorer. You yourself quite rightly praised the lad from Wolves who was loaned to Tranmere when they were top of the league. Tranmere benefitted from Wolves payroll. We had among many others Stephens from Southampton who got our season back on track. We benefitted from Southampton's payroll. What myself and (I think) Den are proposing is that if there is no loan system, everyone is the same boat and after a few season young talent will remain at clubs until they are established. Yes they may then move on, but they are pro footballers who will command a proper fee. In my opinion it is not "nonsense" to want to end a system that stifles english talent by effectively forcing vast swages of young players into reserve football only to be sent out from one team to another for one month periods to "gain match fitness and toughen up". It is wrong and needs to change LydiardRED67
  • Score: 6

11:42am Fri 27 Jun 14

London Red says...

Oi Den! wrote:
oz ashes wrote:
Robinonfire wrote: Jed or Power whoever.. sell up and get someone with real money to buy and run the club. Its all a big joke.
so in other words you want another andrew black to pump in 12 mill then eff off after 5 years and leave us up the shi** again
He didn't leave us in the sh*t. He didn't want his money back and he left behind what I'm sure was one of the healthiest clubs in lower division football. It's just a shame his chairman made such a ricketts of selling it for him. Nobody would have been criticising Black if Patey had found a credible buyer.
So healthy we were 24 hours from Administration and only selling the best player in L1 for a fraction of his value saved us from that!
.
He lost money as he chose to spend it unwisely - if you have out goings bigger than incomings you will lose money - its a simple economic fact!
.
As much as you don't want to believe it he left us with massive amounts of debts - it may not be we owe XYZ co money like before with the CVA etc - but we certainly were sigend up to pay millions to Roberts, Navarro, Williams, Benson, Troy, McEveley, Rooney.L, Rooney.A et al - which we simply could not afford to pay!
.
Also - If we were so healthy why only 2 months later than the Ritchie sale we were again days from Adminstration as we had no money?
.
Because he simply jumped a sinking ship he put a hole in and gave it to anyone without giving a sh1te - despite "not wanting to leave a car crash" - if this is not a bloody car crash then please show me one!!!!!!!
.
Also he hasn't simply given away his cash - there is a clause that when the club is sold on he gets millions back from the proceeds!
.
As much as some hate Lee Power - he is probably the best thing to happen to this club in a long while as his hard earned money (some £2m!) has saved us and he unlike Black will not leave with bills we can't afford to pay - thus his total restructure of the club wage structure!
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]oz ashes[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Robinonfire[/bold] wrote: Jed or Power whoever.. sell up and get someone with real money to buy and run the club. Its all a big joke.[/p][/quote]so in other words you want another andrew black to pump in 12 mill then eff off after 5 years and leave us up the shi** again[/p][/quote]He didn't leave us in the sh*t. He didn't want his money back and he left behind what I'm sure was one of the healthiest clubs in lower division football. It's just a shame his chairman made such a ricketts of selling it for him. Nobody would have been criticising Black if Patey had found a credible buyer.[/p][/quote]So healthy we were 24 hours from Administration and only selling the best player in L1 for a fraction of his value saved us from that! . He lost money as he chose to spend it unwisely - if you have out goings bigger than incomings you will lose money - its a simple economic fact! . As much as you don't want to believe it he left us with massive amounts of debts - it may not be we owe XYZ co money like before with the CVA etc - but we certainly were sigend up to pay millions to Roberts, Navarro, Williams, Benson, Troy, McEveley, Rooney.L, Rooney.A et al - which we simply could not afford to pay! . Also - If we were so healthy why only 2 months later than the Ritchie sale we were again days from Adminstration as we had no money? . Because he simply jumped a sinking ship he put a hole in and gave it to anyone without giving a sh1te - despite "not wanting to leave a car crash" - if this is not a bloody car crash then please show me one!!!!!!! . Also he hasn't simply given away his cash - there is a clause that when the club is sold on he gets millions back from the proceeds! . As much as some hate Lee Power - he is probably the best thing to happen to this club in a long while as his hard earned money (some £2m!) has saved us and he unlike Black will not leave with bills we can't afford to pay - thus his total restructure of the club wage structure! London Red
  • Score: 8

12:21pm Fri 27 Jun 14

Oi Den! says...

"He lost money as he chose to spend it unwisely - if you have out goings bigger than incomings you will lose money - its a simple economic fact!"

Gross hypocrisy LR. Listen to yourself. You were one of those demanding that Black get Di Canio out of every hole he had dug for himself and the club. The be all and end all for you was that PDC should get everything he wanted from Black - and after all that you now accuse Black of being unwise!

It's no surprise that we could have gone into administration without a new owner. (We'd probably have gone under WITH the new owner if Power hadn't got wise to McCrory.) I'd wager that the vast majority of football clubs would face imminent administration if they had to operate without financial assistance from an owner. Let's not forget that's where we'd have been in 2008 if Black & co hadn't saved the club with their genuine help.

The ship wasn't sinking when Black left. He left it because he couldn't tolerate any more abuse from Di Canio - the man who could do no wrong in your eyes.

The reason we ended up in such a mess is simply that McCrory was a fraud who managed to reel Patey in with his pie in the sky stories of substantial funds, new income streams and all the rest of it. Nobody denies that there were expensive contracts to deal with. Some people - you for instance - encouraged those deals, while saying "crappy little clubs" were just jealous of our spending. Your tune is inconsistent LR. You always change it to suit the circumstances of the day. Any buyer proposing a £4m transfer budget - as McCrory did - should have had no trouble seeing those contracts out and getting the club to a more realistic spending position,

Power may well prove to be good for our club. He's got a long way to go before his help proves to be a match for Black's.
"He lost money as he chose to spend it unwisely - if you have out goings bigger than incomings you will lose money - its a simple economic fact!" Gross hypocrisy LR. Listen to yourself. You were one of those demanding that Black get Di Canio out of every hole he had dug for himself and the club. The be all and end all for you was that PDC should get everything he wanted from Black - and after all that you now accuse Black of being unwise! It's no surprise that we could have gone into administration without a new owner. (We'd probably have gone under WITH the new owner if Power hadn't got wise to McCrory.) I'd wager that the vast majority of football clubs would face imminent administration if they had to operate without financial assistance from an owner. Let's not forget that's where we'd have been in 2008 if Black & co hadn't saved the club with their genuine help. The ship wasn't sinking when Black left. He left it because he couldn't tolerate any more abuse from Di Canio - the man who could do no wrong in your eyes. The reason we ended up in such a mess is simply that McCrory was a fraud who managed to reel Patey in with his pie in the sky stories of substantial funds, new income streams and all the rest of it. Nobody denies that there were expensive contracts to deal with. Some people - you for instance - encouraged those deals, while saying "crappy little clubs" were just jealous of our spending. Your tune is inconsistent LR. You always change it to suit the circumstances of the day. Any buyer proposing a £4m transfer budget - as McCrory did - should have had no trouble seeing those contracts out and getting the club to a more realistic spending position, Power may well prove to be good for our club. He's got a long way to go before his help proves to be a match for Black's. Oi Den!
  • Score: 1

12:40pm Fri 27 Jun 14

the wizard says...

Oi Den! wrote:
"He lost money as he chose to spend it unwisely - if you have out goings bigger than incomings you will lose money - its a simple economic fact!"

Gross hypocrisy LR. Listen to yourself. You were one of those demanding that Black get Di Canio out of every hole he had dug for himself and the club. The be all and end all for you was that PDC should get everything he wanted from Black - and after all that you now accuse Black of being unwise!

It's no surprise that we could have gone into administration without a new owner. (We'd probably have gone under WITH the new owner if Power hadn't got wise to McCrory.) I'd wager that the vast majority of football clubs would face imminent administration if they had to operate without financial assistance from an owner. Let's not forget that's where we'd have been in 2008 if Black & co hadn't saved the club with their genuine help.

The ship wasn't sinking when Black left. He left it because he couldn't tolerate any more abuse from Di Canio - the man who could do no wrong in your eyes.

The reason we ended up in such a mess is simply that McCrory was a fraud who managed to reel Patey in with his pie in the sky stories of substantial funds, new income streams and all the rest of it. Nobody denies that there were expensive contracts to deal with. Some people - you for instance - encouraged those deals, while saying "crappy little clubs" were just jealous of our spending. Your tune is inconsistent LR. You always change it to suit the circumstances of the day. Any buyer proposing a £4m transfer budget - as McCrory did - should have had no trouble seeing those contracts out and getting the club to a more realistic spending position,

Power may well prove to be good for our club. He's got a long way to go before his help proves to be a match for Black's.
A decent grasp of the situation.
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: "He lost money as he chose to spend it unwisely - if you have out goings bigger than incomings you will lose money - its a simple economic fact!" Gross hypocrisy LR. Listen to yourself. You were one of those demanding that Black get Di Canio out of every hole he had dug for himself and the club. The be all and end all for you was that PDC should get everything he wanted from Black - and after all that you now accuse Black of being unwise! It's no surprise that we could have gone into administration without a new owner. (We'd probably have gone under WITH the new owner if Power hadn't got wise to McCrory.) I'd wager that the vast majority of football clubs would face imminent administration if they had to operate without financial assistance from an owner. Let's not forget that's where we'd have been in 2008 if Black & co hadn't saved the club with their genuine help. The ship wasn't sinking when Black left. He left it because he couldn't tolerate any more abuse from Di Canio - the man who could do no wrong in your eyes. The reason we ended up in such a mess is simply that McCrory was a fraud who managed to reel Patey in with his pie in the sky stories of substantial funds, new income streams and all the rest of it. Nobody denies that there were expensive contracts to deal with. Some people - you for instance - encouraged those deals, while saying "crappy little clubs" were just jealous of our spending. Your tune is inconsistent LR. You always change it to suit the circumstances of the day. Any buyer proposing a £4m transfer budget - as McCrory did - should have had no trouble seeing those contracts out and getting the club to a more realistic spending position, Power may well prove to be good for our club. He's got a long way to go before his help proves to be a match for Black's.[/p][/quote]A decent grasp of the situation. the wizard
  • Score: 0

12:58pm Fri 27 Jun 14

Oxon-Red says...

Wilesy wrote:
LeGod wrote: I think alot of us knew Jed was a professional Bull******r and now it has come out in the open he has been shown up for what he really is and was planning to do to our club which was ro milk it dry and disappear. I've said all along the guy is not straight and i wonder what else he has done we dont know about. Lets get this fiasco out the way and move on. I hope Jed has to end up paying all the costs of this case and it destroys him. His attempts to go into other clubs has surely now been ended as well after this as no one will touch him with a barge pole as the other clubs that did reject him sussed him out for what he really is a fly by night crook. Good luck LP in the rest of the case and lets hope the judge decides in your favour.
I think it is it more a case of a lot 'suspected' rather than 'knew' and I always thought it a bit disappointing that quite a few were slating Jed without any actual evidence of wrong doing, and basically just believing Fredi's comments, who at the time came across as having a personal grudge, a bit like a better written and less crass version of Grim's views on KMac :-) Personally I always like to look on things positively until the evidence (as it does now) indicates otherwise. Some work in the early days was good such as the club shop revamp and the MyWorld online ticketing. Later on the additional seating for the Chelsea game. Call it naive or a poor judge of character but I spoke to him several times in the early days and found him fine. The presentations that were made by Murrall and Isaacs were well done and seemed credible although the proof of the pudding there was whether anything would come to fruition. 9 months on from those presentations though and of course the true picture has been revealed. In my opinion he lost all credibility before this following the lack of progress on the actions in the presentations and his walking away in the first place - Calne training centre, Stratton Bank roof, Town End fag hut, Murrall and McCrory staying to see us into the Championship etc etc in fact most of what was presented actually never came true. And now the judge has basically accused him of being dishonest and lying under oath, his reputation is at rock bottom. I'm surprised that this actually went to court, surely he must have realised that he would come out of this looking the exact oppositie of a fit and proper owner and that no football club will touch him with a barge pole from now on? A lesson learnt for Lee Power though - if you spend a load of dosh to buy a club get it in writing that you actually own it. Basics! As for being the Spurs feeder club, I had no problem with building a relationship with Spurs, it would only be a one-way relationship I can't see Spurs coming in for any of our players. So what if we get a few season long loans in? 'Permanent' players don't stay long at a club these days anyway.
Totally agree. Easy to agree with someone who supports your point of view but dangerous when you have no clue of their identity. I was willing to give Jed a chance and admit that I have been proven wrong to do so, I am holding my hands up.

Will we ever know if there were others that could have prevented admin and done a good job. IMO one good thing to emerge from the last 18 months is Towns current league position.

On subject of squad sizes in the Prem, I thought after a certain date they were limited to 25 playing members. The 25 however does not include players under a certain age (21 or 23 maybe).

COYMR
[quote][p][bold]Wilesy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LeGod[/bold] wrote: I think alot of us knew Jed was a professional Bull******r and now it has come out in the open he has been shown up for what he really is and was planning to do to our club which was ro milk it dry and disappear. I've said all along the guy is not straight and i wonder what else he has done we dont know about. Lets get this fiasco out the way and move on. I hope Jed has to end up paying all the costs of this case and it destroys him. His attempts to go into other clubs has surely now been ended as well after this as no one will touch him with a barge pole as the other clubs that did reject him sussed him out for what he really is a fly by night crook. Good luck LP in the rest of the case and lets hope the judge decides in your favour.[/p][/quote]I think it is it more a case of a lot 'suspected' rather than 'knew' and I always thought it a bit disappointing that quite a few were slating Jed without any actual evidence of wrong doing, and basically just believing Fredi's comments, who at the time came across as having a personal grudge, a bit like a better written and less crass version of Grim's views on KMac :-) Personally I always like to look on things positively until the evidence (as it does now) indicates otherwise. Some work in the early days was good such as the club shop revamp and the MyWorld online ticketing. Later on the additional seating for the Chelsea game. Call it naive or a poor judge of character but I spoke to him several times in the early days and found him fine. The presentations that were made by Murrall and Isaacs were well done and seemed credible although the proof of the pudding there was whether anything would come to fruition. 9 months on from those presentations though and of course the true picture has been revealed. In my opinion he lost all credibility before this following the lack of progress on the actions in the presentations and his walking away in the first place - Calne training centre, Stratton Bank roof, Town End fag hut, Murrall and McCrory staying to see us into the Championship etc etc in fact most of what was presented actually never came true. And now the judge has basically accused him of being dishonest and lying under oath, his reputation is at rock bottom. I'm surprised that this actually went to court, surely he must have realised that he would come out of this looking the exact oppositie of a fit and proper owner and that no football club will touch him with a barge pole from now on? A lesson learnt for Lee Power though - if you spend a load of dosh to buy a club get it in writing that you actually own it. Basics! As for being the Spurs feeder club, I had no problem with building a relationship with Spurs, it would only be a one-way relationship I can't see Spurs coming in for any of our players. So what if we get a few season long loans in? 'Permanent' players don't stay long at a club these days anyway.[/p][/quote]Totally agree. Easy to agree with someone who supports your point of view but dangerous when you have no clue of their identity. I was willing to give Jed a chance and admit that I have been proven wrong to do so, I am holding my hands up. Will we ever know if there were others that could have prevented admin and done a good job. IMO one good thing to emerge from the last 18 months is Towns current league position. On subject of squad sizes in the Prem, I thought after a certain date they were limited to 25 playing members. The 25 however does not include players under a certain age (21 or 23 maybe). COYMR Oxon-Red
  • Score: 0

12:59pm Fri 27 Jun 14

The Jockster says...

Stilloyal wrote:
Always said Jed was a richard and now you all agree. I hope sincerely that the judge decides the right way and the chances are he will. There is no room for people like Jedward in any sport especially football and especially not STFC..
I hope the F.A / F.L bring him to book about the match fixing allegations and find a way to ban him from football for life.
Loyal- yes you're spot on - I was one of a few who doubted Jed's credibility from day one and was derided by the same people who now belatedly agree - what is it they say? "There's none so blind as them that can't see? And some of those same folks are now applauding LP as the greatest thing since sliced bread when (and I'm with Den + a few here) IMO there is very little to choose between the two of them, both "more cunning than a wagon load of monkeys"!
I'm not point scoring here but my local media source mentioned rumours of match fixing at the CG around the time back in January when there were allegations flying around about similar goings on in lower and non league clubs at that time and I didn't mention it because I knew I'd be derided for it on here. But it seems there's no smoke without fire eh? In my mind I'd rather be shot of both LP and Jed if there were a suitable alternative. My concern is if the media (press, Sky, etc) pick up on these court titbits we'll be back to the Lou/Hillier/The People days with "fit for purpose/administrati
on/expulsion from the league etc" scenarios.
Oh and I'm also on the side of the "end the limitless loans" lobby - let's have it far more controlled and restricted to emergencies leaving clubs with the responsibility of developing and producing the majority of their own players rather than relying on Premier League hand me downs. As Paul Scholes was quoted as saying today " time to go back to basics - to 1990 - limit the influx of foreign talent(let's go back to no more than two at any one time) and only then will we begin to make an impact at international and lower league domestic level by nurturing youthful home grown talent.
Back to the STFC debacle and let's see whether any more "worms need a tin opener" I certainly won't be investing my pension into STFC's coffers until the whole shabby issue is resolved and not at all should The Banbury Bullsh!tter prevail.
[quote][p][bold]Stilloyal[/bold] wrote: Always said Jed was a richard and now you all agree. I hope sincerely that the judge decides the right way and the chances are he will. There is no room for people like Jedward in any sport especially football and especially not STFC.. I hope the F.A / F.L bring him to book about the match fixing allegations and find a way to ban him from football for life.[/p][/quote]Loyal- yes you're spot on - I was one of a few who doubted Jed's credibility from day one and was derided by the same people who now belatedly agree - what is it they say? "There's none so blind as them that can't see? And some of those same folks are now applauding LP as the greatest thing since sliced bread when (and I'm with Den + a few here) IMO there is very little to choose between the two of them, both "more cunning than a wagon load of monkeys"! I'm not point scoring here but my local media source mentioned rumours of match fixing at the CG around the time back in January when there were allegations flying around about similar goings on in lower and non league clubs at that time and I didn't mention it because I knew I'd be derided for it on here. But it seems there's no smoke without fire eh? In my mind I'd rather be shot of both LP and Jed if there were a suitable alternative. My concern is if the media (press, Sky, etc) pick up on these court titbits we'll be back to the Lou/Hillier/The People days with "fit for purpose/administrati on/expulsion from the league etc" scenarios. Oh and I'm also on the side of the "end the limitless loans" lobby - let's have it far more controlled and restricted to emergencies leaving clubs with the responsibility of developing and producing the majority of their own players rather than relying on Premier League hand me downs. As Paul Scholes was quoted as saying today " time to go back to basics - to 1990 - limit the influx of foreign talent(let's go back to no more than two at any one time) and only then will we begin to make an impact at international and lower league domestic level by nurturing youthful home grown talent. Back to the STFC debacle and let's see whether any more "worms need a tin opener" I certainly won't be investing my pension into STFC's coffers until the whole shabby issue is resolved and not at all should The Banbury Bullsh!tter prevail. The Jockster
  • Score: -2

1:08pm Fri 27 Jun 14

Davidsyrett says...

Den, much as I know that you and I will never agree on this point, I just wondered if you felt that Black was did the right thing by offloading the club so quickly? I cant believe that one morning he woke up and thought enough was enough, not after 5 years and the money he had ploughed into it. Surely, as has been mentioned many times, announcing that he would sell up at the end of the season could well have bought in a far higher offer on the club, especially had we got into the championship. If the club had of been debt free as you say, why not hold on a little while longer?
Den, much as I know that you and I will never agree on this point, I just wondered if you felt that Black was did the right thing by offloading the club so quickly? I cant believe that one morning he woke up and thought enough was enough, not after 5 years and the money he had ploughed into it. Surely, as has been mentioned many times, announcing that he would sell up at the end of the season could well have bought in a far higher offer on the club, especially had we got into the championship. If the club had of been debt free as you say, why not hold on a little while longer? Davidsyrett
  • Score: 3

1:09pm Fri 27 Jun 14

Wilesy says...

umpcah wrote:
London Red wrote:
Since 1950 wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
LydiardRED67 wrote: Perhaps I have the wrong end of the stick, but my interpretation of a feeder club is when you have a reguler supply of your own good youngsters and you agree a deal with one particular club that they will have first refusal at whatever price. Not hat I particularly like the deal we had with Spurs mind you. At the time I thought it was a means to an end for one season, however it seems that if Sherwood had remained in post, the arrangement woud have continued. As I have said before, remove the loan sysytem and this isn't an issue.
That's my interpretation too. Our situation seems to be that of a reverse feeder club. I wouldn't go quite as far as removing the loan system altogether, as it can serve a useful purpose in emergencies, but it needs a radical overhaul. Limit the size of squads allowed in the top two divisions, so that the big clubs can't hog redundant players who would otherwise be finding their own level in the game by hard work and gradual progress. Either that or they have their own reserve leagues where they can compete for first team places. The lower divisions can survive comfortably without them. Clubs would have a truer identity and the best teams would come out on top. Lydiard, shall we build a little bunker for two and get a couple of tin hats for when we need to come out for food?
Den. I agree with your concept of limiting the size of squads for the top two leagues. It would never happen though. The 'greed league' was introduced to make English clubs dominant in Europe. It has largely failed of course and totally ruined our national game in the process. The greed league would soon squeal 'level playing field' if they had a cap placed on their squad numbers unless it was Europe wide. The same as they would squeal if they had a cap on non English players they were allowed to sign. Just about had enough of our 'beautiful game at the moment. Couldn't even be bother to watch the world cup games last night. Watched a film instead. All I see now are cheats, liars, prima donnas and corruption. You even have to question the result of the opening game in Brazil!
Not so sure on failing to dominate Europe - Man U won it twice and Liverpool and Chelsea have also won it
.
We also have had an all English final and on numerous occassions had 2 or 3 of the semi finalists
.
OK it has shifted a bit back to Spain and Germany - but like us that won't last forever - especially if most of their stars head over here or Bayern continue to operate in a one team league signing anyone from their rivals who is half decent
.
I do agree things need to change at the top to enhance football throughout the country including our disaterous national side - limiting squads and increasing home grown quotes is part of it (and making home grown actually mean home grown!) - but loans need to stay as they are vital to young players and lower league clubs
.
The idea we would all survive without them is total nonsence - yes we could name teams - but the quality we deteriate dramtically only widening the gap more and more
.
Its like saying transfer should be banned and we can only use our youth products - Yes we would have a team but would they compete like our actual team?
.
Bedwell
N.Thompson Oakley De Costa Jones
Ferguson L.Thompson Walsh
Storey Waldon Francis
.
Fancy watching that next season?
Fancy watching that next season? No has got to be the answer but we watched a similar team in the early 60s !
Switch Barthram in for Nathan Thompson, and that should be the line up for our reserve side, playing week in week out staking a claim for the first team.

Oh hang on we don't have a reserve team, doh!
[quote][p][bold]umpcah[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Since 1950[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LydiardRED67[/bold] wrote: Perhaps I have the wrong end of the stick, but my interpretation of a feeder club is when you have a reguler supply of your own good youngsters and you agree a deal with one particular club that they will have first refusal at whatever price. Not hat I particularly like the deal we had with Spurs mind you. At the time I thought it was a means to an end for one season, however it seems that if Sherwood had remained in post, the arrangement woud have continued. As I have said before, remove the loan sysytem and this isn't an issue.[/p][/quote]That's my interpretation too. Our situation seems to be that of a reverse feeder club. I wouldn't go quite as far as removing the loan system altogether, as it can serve a useful purpose in emergencies, but it needs a radical overhaul. Limit the size of squads allowed in the top two divisions, so that the big clubs can't hog redundant players who would otherwise be finding their own level in the game by hard work and gradual progress. Either that or they have their own reserve leagues where they can compete for first team places. The lower divisions can survive comfortably without them. Clubs would have a truer identity and the best teams would come out on top. Lydiard, shall we build a little bunker for two and get a couple of tin hats for when we need to come out for food?[/p][/quote]Den. I agree with your concept of limiting the size of squads for the top two leagues. It would never happen though. The 'greed league' was introduced to make English clubs dominant in Europe. It has largely failed of course and totally ruined our national game in the process. The greed league would soon squeal 'level playing field' if they had a cap placed on their squad numbers unless it was Europe wide. The same as they would squeal if they had a cap on non English players they were allowed to sign. Just about had enough of our 'beautiful game at the moment. Couldn't even be bother to watch the world cup games last night. Watched a film instead. All I see now are cheats, liars, prima donnas and corruption. You even have to question the result of the opening game in Brazil![/p][/quote]Not so sure on failing to dominate Europe - Man U won it twice and Liverpool and Chelsea have also won it . We also have had an all English final and on numerous occassions had 2 or 3 of the semi finalists . OK it has shifted a bit back to Spain and Germany - but like us that won't last forever - especially if most of their stars head over here or Bayern continue to operate in a one team league signing anyone from their rivals who is half decent . I do agree things need to change at the top to enhance football throughout the country including our disaterous national side - limiting squads and increasing home grown quotes is part of it (and making home grown actually mean home grown!) - but loans need to stay as they are vital to young players and lower league clubs . The idea we would all survive without them is total nonsence - yes we could name teams - but the quality we deteriate dramtically only widening the gap more and more . Its like saying transfer should be banned and we can only use our youth products - Yes we would have a team but would they compete like our actual team? . Bedwell N.Thompson Oakley De Costa Jones Ferguson L.Thompson Walsh Storey Waldon Francis . Fancy watching that next season?[/p][/quote]Fancy watching that next season? No has got to be the answer but we watched a similar team in the early 60s ! [ and rubbed our eyes in disbelief ! ][/p][/quote]Switch Barthram in for Nathan Thompson, and that should be the line up for our reserve side, playing week in week out staking a claim for the first team. Oh hang on we don't have a reserve team, doh! Wilesy
  • Score: 0

1:22pm Fri 27 Jun 14

Wilesy says...

Davidsyrett wrote:
Den, much as I know that you and I will never agree on this point, I just wondered if you felt that Black was did the right thing by offloading the club so quickly? I cant believe that one morning he woke up and thought enough was enough, not after 5 years and the money he had ploughed into it. Surely, as has been mentioned many times, announcing that he would sell up at the end of the season could well have bought in a far higher offer on the club, especially had we got into the championship. If the club had of been debt free as you say, why not hold on a little while longer?
Great to see the Black departure debate revisited for about the 500th time.

Black's money was well received, obviously, but he undoubtedly left us in the mire and close to administration, simple as that.

It's a bit like a father spending a fortune on providing for and putting a roof over his son's head for years, then deciding one day that he needs to get a job and move out in 2 weeks, and because the son doesn't have enough time the father decides to sell the sons car so the son can eat and just survive.

Yes the father did well providing up to kicking the son out etc and doesn't want repaying but its a disaster for the son left right in the lurch.
[quote][p][bold]Davidsyrett[/bold] wrote: Den, much as I know that you and I will never agree on this point, I just wondered if you felt that Black was did the right thing by offloading the club so quickly? I cant believe that one morning he woke up and thought enough was enough, not after 5 years and the money he had ploughed into it. Surely, as has been mentioned many times, announcing that he would sell up at the end of the season could well have bought in a far higher offer on the club, especially had we got into the championship. If the club had of been debt free as you say, why not hold on a little while longer?[/p][/quote]Great to see the Black departure debate revisited for about the 500th time. Black's money was well received, obviously, but he undoubtedly left us in the mire and close to administration, simple as that. It's a bit like a father spending a fortune on providing for and putting a roof over his son's head for years, then deciding one day that he needs to get a job and move out in 2 weeks, and because the son doesn't have enough time the father decides to sell the sons car so the son can eat and just survive. Yes the father did well providing up to kicking the son out etc and doesn't want repaying but its a disaster for the son left right in the lurch. Wilesy
  • Score: 1

1:38pm Fri 27 Jun 14

Davidsyrett says...

Changing the subject slightly, found this from a couple of weeks ago written by a Birmingham fan regarding JW:

Wray was not the owner when he was chairman of Swindon, he was moved on when he was removed from the top job at Swindon under the strict instruction of primary investor Andrew Black who is co-founder with Wray's brother of Betfair.
Wray brought in Di Canio (who is out of a job) who is the last person we need at BCFC.
So as with BIHL who is the real owner of Soccer Management Worldwide Limited?
From the little i've read the Swindon fans seemed to like him, but he was there when they exceeded the set wage and fee limit and ended up with a transfer embargo.
This creates more questions than answers, maybe they aren't the best new prospective owners for the club / fans, but are for BIHL in terms of meeting this 25%.
So BIHL may get what they want but what will the fans end up with?
Let's hope it ends better than it looks.
Will it be another debacle as happened at Swindon?

Are they right to be worried?
Changing the subject slightly, found this from a couple of weeks ago written by a Birmingham fan regarding JW: Wray was not the owner when he was chairman of Swindon, he was moved on when he was removed from the top job at Swindon under the strict instruction of primary investor Andrew Black who is co-founder with Wray's brother of Betfair. Wray brought in Di Canio (who is out of a job) who is the last person we need at BCFC. So as with BIHL who is the real owner of Soccer Management Worldwide Limited? From the little i've read the Swindon fans seemed to like him, but he was there when they exceeded the set wage and fee limit and ended up with a transfer embargo. This creates more questions than answers, maybe they aren't the best new prospective owners for the club / fans, but are for BIHL in terms of meeting this 25%. So BIHL may get what they want but what will the fans end up with? Let's hope it ends better than it looks. Will it be another debacle as happened at Swindon? Are they right to be worried? Davidsyrett
  • Score: 0

1:59pm Fri 27 Jun 14

London Red says...

Oi Den! wrote:
"He lost money as he chose to spend it unwisely - if you have out goings bigger than incomings you will lose money - its a simple economic fact!" Gross hypocrisy LR. Listen to yourself. You were one of those demanding that Black get Di Canio out of every hole he had dug for himself and the club. The be all and end all for you was that PDC should get everything he wanted from Black - and after all that you now accuse Black of being unwise! It's no surprise that we could have gone into administration without a new owner. (We'd probably have gone under WITH the new owner if Power hadn't got wise to McCrory.) I'd wager that the vast majority of football clubs would face imminent administration if they had to operate without financial assistance from an owner. Let's not forget that's where we'd have been in 2008 if Black & co hadn't saved the club with their genuine help. The ship wasn't sinking when Black left. He left it because he couldn't tolerate any more abuse from Di Canio - the man who could do no wrong in your eyes. The reason we ended up in such a mess is simply that McCrory was a fraud who managed to reel Patey in with his pie in the sky stories of substantial funds, new income streams and all the rest of it. Nobody denies that there were expensive contracts to deal with. Some people - you for instance - encouraged those deals, while saying "crappy little clubs" were just jealous of our spending. Your tune is inconsistent LR. You always change it to suit the circumstances of the day. Any buyer proposing a £4m transfer budget - as McCrory did - should have had no trouble seeing those contracts out and getting the club to a more realistic spending position, Power may well prove to be good for our club. He's got a long way to go before his help proves to be a match for Black's.
Total bull - and if you are going to quote me at least get it right!
.
What I actually said was as Black had agreed to a budget then I thought he should allow that budget to be spent - that is nothing like you were suggesting
.
Patey came out and said we have a budget of £4.5m of which we have £4m had been accounted for - so there was £500k left
.
What I actualy said and still agree with is as we had injuries that extra could have been released earlier than Jan as planned - to get us through the injuries - I never once said he should exceed the overall budget
.
Then come Jan - during the transfer window we could have shuffled the pack if need be with some going out to fund other coming in and never going over the agreed £4.5m
.
I also said if Black is setting a budget which will make a loss - as long as he is prepared to take that loss thats his choice
.
What I was am still am p1ssed off about is he set the budget and then just went - f**k it and left halfway through the season!
.
Had he gone in the summer like we saw last year and the year we got relegated to L2 - you can shuffle the pack and move people on wihtout having to sell your best players for a fraction of their cost
.
Also hears a thought - why did Black renew Di Canio's contract and why not simply sack him if he could tollerate him anymore?
.
We lost Di Canio anyway, Black lost his best friend and we as a club got completely f**ked over - so was that better off than a small protest about Di Canio going which could have been ended with why he had to sack him - which probably seen most people side with him!
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: "He lost money as he chose to spend it unwisely - if you have out goings bigger than incomings you will lose money - its a simple economic fact!" Gross hypocrisy LR. Listen to yourself. You were one of those demanding that Black get Di Canio out of every hole he had dug for himself and the club. The be all and end all for you was that PDC should get everything he wanted from Black - and after all that you now accuse Black of being unwise! It's no surprise that we could have gone into administration without a new owner. (We'd probably have gone under WITH the new owner if Power hadn't got wise to McCrory.) I'd wager that the vast majority of football clubs would face imminent administration if they had to operate without financial assistance from an owner. Let's not forget that's where we'd have been in 2008 if Black & co hadn't saved the club with their genuine help. The ship wasn't sinking when Black left. He left it because he couldn't tolerate any more abuse from Di Canio - the man who could do no wrong in your eyes. The reason we ended up in such a mess is simply that McCrory was a fraud who managed to reel Patey in with his pie in the sky stories of substantial funds, new income streams and all the rest of it. Nobody denies that there were expensive contracts to deal with. Some people - you for instance - encouraged those deals, while saying "crappy little clubs" were just jealous of our spending. Your tune is inconsistent LR. You always change it to suit the circumstances of the day. Any buyer proposing a £4m transfer budget - as McCrory did - should have had no trouble seeing those contracts out and getting the club to a more realistic spending position, Power may well prove to be good for our club. He's got a long way to go before his help proves to be a match for Black's.[/p][/quote]Total bull - and if you are going to quote me at least get it right! . What I actually said was as Black had agreed to a budget then I thought he should allow that budget to be spent - that is nothing like you were suggesting . Patey came out and said we have a budget of £4.5m of which we have £4m had been accounted for - so there was £500k left . What I actualy said and still agree with is as we had injuries that extra could have been released earlier than Jan as planned - to get us through the injuries - I never once said he should exceed the overall budget . Then come Jan - during the transfer window we could have shuffled the pack if need be with some going out to fund other coming in and never going over the agreed £4.5m . I also said if Black is setting a budget which will make a loss - as long as he is prepared to take that loss thats his choice . What I was am still am p1ssed off about is he set the budget and then just went - f**k it and left halfway through the season! . Had he gone in the summer like we saw last year and the year we got relegated to L2 - you can shuffle the pack and move people on wihtout having to sell your best players for a fraction of their cost . Also hears a thought - why did Black renew Di Canio's contract and why not simply sack him if he could tollerate him anymore? . We lost Di Canio anyway, Black lost his best friend and we as a club got completely f**ked over - so was that better off than a small protest about Di Canio going which could have been ended with why he had to sack him - which probably seen most people side with him! London Red
  • Score: 3

2:01pm Fri 27 Jun 14

London Red says...

Wilesy wrote:
umpcah wrote:
London Red wrote:
Since 1950 wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
LydiardRED67 wrote: Perhaps I have the wrong end of the stick, but my interpretation of a feeder club is when you have a reguler supply of your own good youngsters and you agree a deal with one particular club that they will have first refusal at whatever price. Not hat I particularly like the deal we had with Spurs mind you. At the time I thought it was a means to an end for one season, however it seems that if Sherwood had remained in post, the arrangement woud have continued. As I have said before, remove the loan sysytem and this isn't an issue.
That's my interpretation too. Our situation seems to be that of a reverse feeder club. I wouldn't go quite as far as removing the loan system altogether, as it can serve a useful purpose in emergencies, but it needs a radical overhaul. Limit the size of squads allowed in the top two divisions, so that the big clubs can't hog redundant players who would otherwise be finding their own level in the game by hard work and gradual progress. Either that or they have their own reserve leagues where they can compete for first team places. The lower divisions can survive comfortably without them. Clubs would have a truer identity and the best teams would come out on top. Lydiard, shall we build a little bunker for two and get a couple of tin hats for when we need to come out for food?
Den. I agree with your concept of limiting the size of squads for the top two leagues. It would never happen though. The 'greed league' was introduced to make English clubs dominant in Europe. It has largely failed of course and totally ruined our national game in the process. The greed league would soon squeal 'level playing field' if they had a cap placed on their squad numbers unless it was Europe wide. The same as they would squeal if they had a cap on non English players they were allowed to sign. Just about had enough of our 'beautiful game at the moment. Couldn't even be bother to watch the world cup games last night. Watched a film instead. All I see now are cheats, liars, prima donnas and corruption. You even have to question the result of the opening game in Brazil!
Not so sure on failing to dominate Europe - Man U won it twice and Liverpool and Chelsea have also won it . We also have had an all English final and on numerous occassions had 2 or 3 of the semi finalists . OK it has shifted a bit back to Spain and Germany - but like us that won't last forever - especially if most of their stars head over here or Bayern continue to operate in a one team league signing anyone from their rivals who is half decent . I do agree things need to change at the top to enhance football throughout the country including our disaterous national side - limiting squads and increasing home grown quotes is part of it (and making home grown actually mean home grown!) - but loans need to stay as they are vital to young players and lower league clubs . The idea we would all survive without them is total nonsence - yes we could name teams - but the quality we deteriate dramtically only widening the gap more and more . Its like saying transfer should be banned and we can only use our youth products - Yes we would have a team but would they compete like our actual team? . Bedwell N.Thompson Oakley De Costa Jones Ferguson L.Thompson Walsh Storey Waldon Francis . Fancy watching that next season?
Fancy watching that next season? No has got to be the answer but we watched a similar team in the early 60s !
Switch Barthram in for Nathan Thompson, and that should be the line up for our reserve side, playing week in week out staking a claim for the first team. Oh hang on we don't have a reserve team, doh!
Because there would be no one to play them against - as the club explained at the time of shutting it - yet for some reason is still too hard for some people to understand!
[quote][p][bold]Wilesy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]umpcah[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Since 1950[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LydiardRED67[/bold] wrote: Perhaps I have the wrong end of the stick, but my interpretation of a feeder club is when you have a reguler supply of your own good youngsters and you agree a deal with one particular club that they will have first refusal at whatever price. Not hat I particularly like the deal we had with Spurs mind you. At the time I thought it was a means to an end for one season, however it seems that if Sherwood had remained in post, the arrangement woud have continued. As I have said before, remove the loan sysytem and this isn't an issue.[/p][/quote]That's my interpretation too. Our situation seems to be that of a reverse feeder club. I wouldn't go quite as far as removing the loan system altogether, as it can serve a useful purpose in emergencies, but it needs a radical overhaul. Limit the size of squads allowed in the top two divisions, so that the big clubs can't hog redundant players who would otherwise be finding their own level in the game by hard work and gradual progress. Either that or they have their own reserve leagues where they can compete for first team places. The lower divisions can survive comfortably without them. Clubs would have a truer identity and the best teams would come out on top. Lydiard, shall we build a little bunker for two and get a couple of tin hats for when we need to come out for food?[/p][/quote]Den. I agree with your concept of limiting the size of squads for the top two leagues. It would never happen though. The 'greed league' was introduced to make English clubs dominant in Europe. It has largely failed of course and totally ruined our national game in the process. The greed league would soon squeal 'level playing field' if they had a cap placed on their squad numbers unless it was Europe wide. The same as they would squeal if they had a cap on non English players they were allowed to sign. Just about had enough of our 'beautiful game at the moment. Couldn't even be bother to watch the world cup games last night. Watched a film instead. All I see now are cheats, liars, prima donnas and corruption. You even have to question the result of the opening game in Brazil![/p][/quote]Not so sure on failing to dominate Europe - Man U won it twice and Liverpool and Chelsea have also won it . We also have had an all English final and on numerous occassions had 2 or 3 of the semi finalists . OK it has shifted a bit back to Spain and Germany - but like us that won't last forever - especially if most of their stars head over here or Bayern continue to operate in a one team league signing anyone from their rivals who is half decent . I do agree things need to change at the top to enhance football throughout the country including our disaterous national side - limiting squads and increasing home grown quotes is part of it (and making home grown actually mean home grown!) - but loans need to stay as they are vital to young players and lower league clubs . The idea we would all survive without them is total nonsence - yes we could name teams - but the quality we deteriate dramtically only widening the gap more and more . Its like saying transfer should be banned and we can only use our youth products - Yes we would have a team but would they compete like our actual team? . Bedwell N.Thompson Oakley De Costa Jones Ferguson L.Thompson Walsh Storey Waldon Francis . Fancy watching that next season?[/p][/quote]Fancy watching that next season? No has got to be the answer but we watched a similar team in the early 60s ! [ and rubbed our eyes in disbelief ! ][/p][/quote]Switch Barthram in for Nathan Thompson, and that should be the line up for our reserve side, playing week in week out staking a claim for the first team. Oh hang on we don't have a reserve team, doh![/p][/quote]Because there would be no one to play them against - as the club explained at the time of shutting it - yet for some reason is still too hard for some people to understand! London Red
  • Score: 1

2:05pm Fri 27 Jun 14

London Red says...

Davidsyrett wrote:
Den, much as I know that you and I will never agree on this point, I just wondered if you felt that Black was did the right thing by offloading the club so quickly? I cant believe that one morning he woke up and thought enough was enough, not after 5 years and the money he had ploughed into it. Surely, as has been mentioned many times, announcing that he would sell up at the end of the season could well have bought in a far higher offer on the club, especially had we got into the championship. If the club had of been debt free as you say, why not hold on a little while longer?
Exactly - we had 7 parties interested of which at least 5 if not 6 dropped out when it came clear they had no chance of doing any sort of due dilligence before his self imposed deadline!
.
Had that deadline not been there we may have had a new oweners who could have taken us to a completely new level and he could have potentially seen some sort of loss minimisation
.
He was never going to get his full 10m back - but he might have been able to get more than £1!
[quote][p][bold]Davidsyrett[/bold] wrote: Den, much as I know that you and I will never agree on this point, I just wondered if you felt that Black was did the right thing by offloading the club so quickly? I cant believe that one morning he woke up and thought enough was enough, not after 5 years and the money he had ploughed into it. Surely, as has been mentioned many times, announcing that he would sell up at the end of the season could well have bought in a far higher offer on the club, especially had we got into the championship. If the club had of been debt free as you say, why not hold on a little while longer?[/p][/quote]Exactly - we had 7 parties interested of which at least 5 if not 6 dropped out when it came clear they had no chance of doing any sort of due dilligence before his self imposed deadline! . Had that deadline not been there we may have had a new oweners who could have taken us to a completely new level and he could have potentially seen some sort of loss minimisation . He was never going to get his full 10m back - but he might have been able to get more than £1! London Red
  • Score: 1

2:17pm Fri 27 Jun 14

London Red says...

The Jockster wrote:
Stilloyal wrote: Always said Jed was a richard and now you all agree. I hope sincerely that the judge decides the right way and the chances are he will. There is no room for people like Jedward in any sport especially football and especially not STFC.. I hope the F.A / F.L bring him to book about the match fixing allegations and find a way to ban him from football for life.
Loyal- yes you're spot on - I was one of a few who doubted Jed's credibility from day one and was derided by the same people who now belatedly agree - what is it they say? "There's none so blind as them that can't see? And some of those same folks are now applauding LP as the greatest thing since sliced bread when (and I'm with Den + a few here) IMO there is very little to choose between the two of them, both "more cunning than a wagon load of monkeys"! I'm not point scoring here but my local media source mentioned rumours of match fixing at the CG around the time back in January when there were allegations flying around about similar goings on in lower and non league clubs at that time and I didn't mention it because I knew I'd be derided for it on here. But it seems there's no smoke without fire eh? In my mind I'd rather be shot of both LP and Jed if there were a suitable alternative. My concern is if the media (press, Sky, etc) pick up on these court titbits we'll be back to the Lou/Hillier/The People days with "fit for purpose/administrati on/expulsion from the league etc" scenarios. Oh and I'm also on the side of the "end the limitless loans" lobby - let's have it far more controlled and restricted to emergencies leaving clubs with the responsibility of developing and producing the majority of their own players rather than relying on Premier League hand me downs. As Paul Scholes was quoted as saying today " time to go back to basics - to 1990 - limit the influx of foreign talent(let's go back to no more than two at any one time) and only then will we begin to make an impact at international and lower league domestic level by nurturing youthful home grown talent. Back to the STFC debacle and let's see whether any more "worms need a tin opener" I certainly won't be investing my pension into STFC's coffers until the whole shabby issue is resolved and not at all should The Banbury Bullsh!tter prevail.
Loans are limited:
.
You can only have a max of 8 - 4 U23 loanees and 4 over 23 loanees
.
You can only have 4 from 1 club during a season - this can be increased to 5 if one is a "Youth Loan"
.
You can only 2 at a time from one club if players are over 23
.
A maximum of 5 are only allowed to be named in a match day squad of 18
.
Its in section 6.52 and 6.53 of the FL rulebook - simple google search takes you straight to it!
[quote][p][bold]The Jockster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stilloyal[/bold] wrote: Always said Jed was a richard and now you all agree. I hope sincerely that the judge decides the right way and the chances are he will. There is no room for people like Jedward in any sport especially football and especially not STFC.. I hope the F.A / F.L bring him to book about the match fixing allegations and find a way to ban him from football for life.[/p][/quote]Loyal- yes you're spot on - I was one of a few who doubted Jed's credibility from day one and was derided by the same people who now belatedly agree - what is it they say? "There's none so blind as them that can't see? And some of those same folks are now applauding LP as the greatest thing since sliced bread when (and I'm with Den + a few here) IMO there is very little to choose between the two of them, both "more cunning than a wagon load of monkeys"! I'm not point scoring here but my local media source mentioned rumours of match fixing at the CG around the time back in January when there were allegations flying around about similar goings on in lower and non league clubs at that time and I didn't mention it because I knew I'd be derided for it on here. But it seems there's no smoke without fire eh? In my mind I'd rather be shot of both LP and Jed if there were a suitable alternative. My concern is if the media (press, Sky, etc) pick up on these court titbits we'll be back to the Lou/Hillier/The People days with "fit for purpose/administrati on/expulsion from the league etc" scenarios. Oh and I'm also on the side of the "end the limitless loans" lobby - let's have it far more controlled and restricted to emergencies leaving clubs with the responsibility of developing and producing the majority of their own players rather than relying on Premier League hand me downs. As Paul Scholes was quoted as saying today " time to go back to basics - to 1990 - limit the influx of foreign talent(let's go back to no more than two at any one time) and only then will we begin to make an impact at international and lower league domestic level by nurturing youthful home grown talent. Back to the STFC debacle and let's see whether any more "worms need a tin opener" I certainly won't be investing my pension into STFC's coffers until the whole shabby issue is resolved and not at all should The Banbury Bullsh!tter prevail.[/p][/quote]Loans are limited: . You can only have a max of 8 - 4 U23 loanees and 4 over 23 loanees . You can only have 4 from 1 club during a season - this can be increased to 5 if one is a "Youth Loan" . You can only 2 at a time from one club if players are over 23 . A maximum of 5 are only allowed to be named in a match day squad of 18 . Its in section 6.52 and 6.53 of the FL rulebook - simple google search takes you straight to it! London Red
  • Score: 0

2:44pm Fri 27 Jun 14

Oi Den! says...

Chaps, I was as disappointed as anyone when Black decided to call it a day but I can't be angry with someone who saved the club and kept it afloat (and then some) for 5 years. Incidentally, 5 years was the agreed term of his loans to the club. As LR knows, those loans were repayable in January 2013. I suspect he would have still been on board now if PDC could have reined in his ego but he (Black) may well have had a good personal or legal reason for making that date the deadline for disposing of the club. I am not at all sure that he offloaded it as suddenly as people say. Patey had been in place for months and his role was not really anything other than middleman in the sale. He was never a proper chairman.

I see 3 people as culpable: Di Canio for his ugly and arrogant demands (even his biggest fans would now surely agree that accusing the board of being "unambitious" was outrageous), Patey for failing to obtain a credible buyer and McCrory because he took the p1ss out of everyone associated with Swindon Town. Let's hope he gets his just desserts.

By the way Oxon, it was certainly not a case of agreeing with fredi because his statements supported the opinion we had formed of McCrory. I would have much rather been told in the same calm and rational manner, with similarly detailed statements of the facts, that our former chairman was actually a jolly good chap and would prove the doubters wrong. The point is that fredi would have had to be a superhuman genius to make all that stuff up and not catch himself out with contradictions and inconsistencies. That's why it was so clear, in my view anyway, that he was giving us the truth.
Chaps, I was as disappointed as anyone when Black decided to call it a day but I can't be angry with someone who saved the club and kept it afloat (and then some) for 5 years. Incidentally, 5 years was the agreed term of his loans to the club. As LR knows, those loans were repayable in January 2013. I suspect he would have still been on board now if PDC could have reined in his ego but he (Black) may well have had a good personal or legal reason for making that date the deadline for disposing of the club. I am not at all sure that he offloaded it as suddenly as people say. Patey had been in place for months and his role was not really anything other than middleman in the sale. He was never a proper chairman. I see 3 people as culpable: Di Canio for his ugly and arrogant demands (even his biggest fans would now surely agree that accusing the board of being "unambitious" was outrageous), Patey for failing to obtain a credible buyer and McCrory because he took the p1ss out of everyone associated with Swindon Town. Let's hope he gets his just desserts. By the way Oxon, it was certainly not a case of agreeing with fredi because his statements supported the opinion we had formed of McCrory. I would have much rather been told in the same calm and rational manner, with similarly detailed statements of the facts, that our former chairman was actually a jolly good chap and would prove the doubters wrong. The point is that fredi would have had to be a superhuman genius to make all that stuff up and not catch himself out with contradictions and inconsistencies. That's why it was so clear, in my view anyway, that he was giving us the truth. Oi Den!
  • Score: 2

2:52pm Fri 27 Jun 14

Oi Den! says...

Sorry - one last point in answer to LR. Di Canio held the club to ransom with his take it or leave it "double my salary" draft contract. Black probably agreed to sign it because he knew PDC was God in the eyes of many. If Black had sacked him all hell would have broken loose - and LR would have been at the forefront!
Sorry - one last point in answer to LR. Di Canio held the club to ransom with his take it or leave it "double my salary" draft contract. Black probably agreed to sign it because he knew PDC was God in the eyes of many. If Black had sacked him all hell would have broken loose - and LR would have been at the forefront! Oi Den!
  • Score: 2

3:17pm Fri 27 Jun 14

London Red says...

Oi Den! wrote:
Sorry - one last point in answer to LR. Di Canio held the club to ransom with his take it or leave it "double my salary" draft contract. Black probably agreed to sign it because he knew PDC was God in the eyes of many. If Black had sacked him all hell would have broken loose - and LR would have been at the forefront!
Is that a fact????????
.
Or again you simply misrepresenting me!!!!
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: Sorry - one last point in answer to LR. Di Canio held the club to ransom with his take it or leave it "double my salary" draft contract. Black probably agreed to sign it because he knew PDC was God in the eyes of many. If Black had sacked him all hell would have broken loose - and LR would have been at the forefront![/p][/quote]Is that a fact???????? . Or again you simply misrepresenting me!!!! London Red
  • Score: -2

3:17pm Fri 27 Jun 14

London Red says...

Oi Den! wrote:
Sorry - one last point in answer to LR. Di Canio held the club to ransom with his take it or leave it "double my salary" draft contract. Black probably agreed to sign it because he knew PDC was God in the eyes of many. If Black had sacked him all hell would have broken loose - and LR would have been at the forefront!
Is that a fact????????
.
Or again you simply misrepresenting me!!!!
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: Sorry - one last point in answer to LR. Di Canio held the club to ransom with his take it or leave it "double my salary" draft contract. Black probably agreed to sign it because he knew PDC was God in the eyes of many. If Black had sacked him all hell would have broken loose - and LR would have been at the forefront![/p][/quote]Is that a fact???????? . Or again you simply misrepresenting me!!!! London Red
  • Score: -2

3:20pm Fri 27 Jun 14

Oi Den! says...

London Red wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
Sorry - one last point in answer to LR. Di Canio held the club to ransom with his take it or leave it "double my salary" draft contract. Black probably agreed to sign it because he knew PDC was God in the eyes of many. If Black had sacked him all hell would have broken loose - and LR would have been at the forefront!
Is that a fact????????
.
Or again you simply misrepresenting me!!!!
Haha! Can't state it as fact but reckon it would have been pretty likely!
[quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: Sorry - one last point in answer to LR. Di Canio held the club to ransom with his take it or leave it "double my salary" draft contract. Black probably agreed to sign it because he knew PDC was God in the eyes of many. If Black had sacked him all hell would have broken loose - and LR would have been at the forefront![/p][/quote]Is that a fact???????? . Or again you simply misrepresenting me!!!![/p][/quote]Haha! Can't state it as fact but reckon it would have been pretty likely! Oi Den!
  • Score: 0

3:37pm Fri 27 Jun 14

Wildwestener says...

umpcah wrote:
Wildwestener wrote:
LydiardRED67 wrote:
Perhaps I have the wrong end of the stick, but my interpretation of a feeder club is when you have a reguler supply of your own good youngsters and you agree a deal with one particular club that they will have first refusal at whatever price.

Not hat I particularly like the deal we had with Spurs mind you. At the time I thought it was a means to an end for one season, however it seems that if Sherwood had remained in post, the arrangement woud have continued.

As I have said before, remove the loan sysytem and this isn't an issue.
I have to agree, Swindon needs to be it's own club, not the Spurs Youth team in all but name.
It's such a shame to see our once proud club reduced to this nonsense (bickering owners who seem to have ulterior motives of one sort or another, fighting over the club.
" Swindon needs to be it's own club, not the Spurs Youth team in all but name " In recent times STFC`s bank account has not been a bottomless pit for dipping into for better players. An arrangement with a Premiership club for the borrowing of a few of their surplus but talented young players with a promise of " first refusal " on any gems produced within a youth movement is fine by me at this time.
Nah, short tem expedience for long term independence no thanks. I support STFC not Spurs.
[quote][p][bold]umpcah[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wildwestener[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LydiardRED67[/bold] wrote: Perhaps I have the wrong end of the stick, but my interpretation of a feeder club is when you have a reguler supply of your own good youngsters and you agree a deal with one particular club that they will have first refusal at whatever price. Not hat I particularly like the deal we had with Spurs mind you. At the time I thought it was a means to an end for one season, however it seems that if Sherwood had remained in post, the arrangement woud have continued. As I have said before, remove the loan sysytem and this isn't an issue.[/p][/quote]I have to agree, Swindon needs to be it's own club, not the Spurs Youth team in all but name. It's such a shame to see our once proud club reduced to this nonsense (bickering owners who seem to have ulterior motives of one sort or another, fighting over the club.[/p][/quote]" Swindon needs to be it's own club, not the Spurs Youth team in all but name " In recent times STFC`s bank account has not been a bottomless pit for dipping into for better players. An arrangement with a Premiership club for the borrowing of a few of their surplus but talented young players with a promise of " first refusal " on any gems produced within a youth movement is fine by me at this time.[/p][/quote]Nah, short tem expedience for long term independence no thanks. I support STFC not Spurs. Wildwestener
  • Score: 0

3:37pm Fri 27 Jun 14

Wilesy says...

Oi Den! wrote:
Chaps, I was as disappointed as anyone when Black decided to call it a day but I can't be angry with someone who saved the club and kept it afloat (and then some) for 5 years. Incidentally, 5 years was the agreed term of his loans to the club. As LR knows, those loans were repayable in January 2013. I suspect he would have still been on board now if PDC could have reined in his ego but he (Black) may well have had a good personal or legal reason for making that date the deadline for disposing of the club. I am not at all sure that he offloaded it as suddenly as people say. Patey had been in place for months and his role was not really anything other than middleman in the sale. He was never a proper chairman.

I see 3 people as culpable: Di Canio for his ugly and arrogant demands (even his biggest fans would now surely agree that accusing the board of being "unambitious" was outrageous), Patey for failing to obtain a credible buyer and McCrory because he took the p1ss out of everyone associated with Swindon Town. Let's hope he gets his just desserts.

By the way Oxon, it was certainly not a case of agreeing with fredi because his statements supported the opinion we had formed of McCrory. I would have much rather been told in the same calm and rational manner, with similarly detailed statements of the facts, that our former chairman was actually a jolly good chap and would prove the doubters wrong. The point is that fredi would have had to be a superhuman genius to make all that stuff up and not catch himself out with contradictions and inconsistencies. That's why it was so clear, in my view anyway, that he was giving us the truth.
Den do you have an Andrew Black shrine at home, Alan Partidge style?
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: Chaps, I was as disappointed as anyone when Black decided to call it a day but I can't be angry with someone who saved the club and kept it afloat (and then some) for 5 years. Incidentally, 5 years was the agreed term of his loans to the club. As LR knows, those loans were repayable in January 2013. I suspect he would have still been on board now if PDC could have reined in his ego but he (Black) may well have had a good personal or legal reason for making that date the deadline for disposing of the club. I am not at all sure that he offloaded it as suddenly as people say. Patey had been in place for months and his role was not really anything other than middleman in the sale. He was never a proper chairman. I see 3 people as culpable: Di Canio for his ugly and arrogant demands (even his biggest fans would now surely agree that accusing the board of being "unambitious" was outrageous), Patey for failing to obtain a credible buyer and McCrory because he took the p1ss out of everyone associated with Swindon Town. Let's hope he gets his just desserts. By the way Oxon, it was certainly not a case of agreeing with fredi because his statements supported the opinion we had formed of McCrory. I would have much rather been told in the same calm and rational manner, with similarly detailed statements of the facts, that our former chairman was actually a jolly good chap and would prove the doubters wrong. The point is that fredi would have had to be a superhuman genius to make all that stuff up and not catch himself out with contradictions and inconsistencies. That's why it was so clear, in my view anyway, that he was giving us the truth.[/p][/quote]Den do you have an Andrew Black shrine at home, Alan Partidge style? Wilesy
  • Score: 0

3:38pm Fri 27 Jun 14

the wizard says...

London Red wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
"He lost money as he chose to spend it unwisely - if you have out goings bigger than incomings you will lose money - its a simple economic fact!" Gross hypocrisy LR. Listen to yourself. You were one of those demanding that Black get Di Canio out of every hole he had dug for himself and the club. The be all and end all for you was that PDC should get everything he wanted from Black - and after all that you now accuse Black of being unwise! It's no surprise that we could have gone into administration without a new owner. (We'd probably have gone under WITH the new owner if Power hadn't got wise to McCrory.) I'd wager that the vast majority of football clubs would face imminent administration if they had to operate without financial assistance from an owner. Let's not forget that's where we'd have been in 2008 if Black & co hadn't saved the club with their genuine help. The ship wasn't sinking when Black left. He left it because he couldn't tolerate any more abuse from Di Canio - the man who could do no wrong in your eyes. The reason we ended up in such a mess is simply that McCrory was a fraud who managed to reel Patey in with his pie in the sky stories of substantial funds, new income streams and all the rest of it. Nobody denies that there were expensive contracts to deal with. Some people - you for instance - encouraged those deals, while saying "crappy little clubs" were just jealous of our spending. Your tune is inconsistent LR. You always change it to suit the circumstances of the day. Any buyer proposing a £4m transfer budget - as McCrory did - should have had no trouble seeing those contracts out and getting the club to a more realistic spending position, Power may well prove to be good for our club. He's got a long way to go before his help proves to be a match for Black's.
Total bull - and if you are going to quote me at least get it right!
.
What I actually said was as Black had agreed to a budget then I thought he should allow that budget to be spent - that is nothing like you were suggesting
.
Patey came out and said we have a budget of £4.5m of which we have £4m had been accounted for - so there was £500k left
.
What I actualy said and still agree with is as we had injuries that extra could have been released earlier than Jan as planned - to get us through the injuries - I never once said he should exceed the overall budget
.
Then come Jan - during the transfer window we could have shuffled the pack if need be with some going out to fund other coming in and never going over the agreed £4.5m
.
I also said if Black is setting a budget which will make a loss - as long as he is prepared to take that loss thats his choice
.
What I was am still am p1ssed off about is he set the budget and then just went - f**k it and left halfway through the season!
.
Had he gone in the summer like we saw last year and the year we got relegated to L2 - you can shuffle the pack and move people on wihtout having to sell your best players for a fraction of their cost
.
Also hears a thought - why did Black renew Di Canio's contract and why not simply sack him if he could tollerate him anymore?
.
We lost Di Canio anyway, Black lost his best friend and we as a club got completely f**ked over - so was that better off than a small protest about Di Canio going which could have been ended with why he had to sack him - which probably seen most people side with him!
According to Nick Watkins at the time of the embargo, "He's had his budget and then some, and has blown the lot, and now he wants more, he needs to be careful of what may happen". PdC's demands of Black were the straw that broke the camels back and there is little doubting that. What you suggest did actually happen, after a few calls from a manic PdC, Black went to bed one evening and slept on it, got up the next morning and made his mind up. Patey was already in the wings and the button was pressed. That was how NW explained it to me, and I am in no position to question that.
Although it was never said I got the distinct impression that Black never really did like PdC, and his constant demands for more players hence more cash was wearing thin. Another point which heavily influenced Black was the heavy turn over of players and the fall out rate that occurred, hero to zero often in second, well you have to see his point. That is how it was told openly just outside the ticket office, and there were plenty listening with VERY raised eyebrows. Anyway, we have moved on from that and we are where we are today, still praying all will turn out OK and hopefully better than before. I sincerely hope it does.
[quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: "He lost money as he chose to spend it unwisely - if you have out goings bigger than incomings you will lose money - its a simple economic fact!" Gross hypocrisy LR. Listen to yourself. You were one of those demanding that Black get Di Canio out of every hole he had dug for himself and the club. The be all and end all for you was that PDC should get everything he wanted from Black - and after all that you now accuse Black of being unwise! It's no surprise that we could have gone into administration without a new owner. (We'd probably have gone under WITH the new owner if Power hadn't got wise to McCrory.) I'd wager that the vast majority of football clubs would face imminent administration if they had to operate without financial assistance from an owner. Let's not forget that's where we'd have been in 2008 if Black & co hadn't saved the club with their genuine help. The ship wasn't sinking when Black left. He left it because he couldn't tolerate any more abuse from Di Canio - the man who could do no wrong in your eyes. The reason we ended up in such a mess is simply that McCrory was a fraud who managed to reel Patey in with his pie in the sky stories of substantial funds, new income streams and all the rest of it. Nobody denies that there were expensive contracts to deal with. Some people - you for instance - encouraged those deals, while saying "crappy little clubs" were just jealous of our spending. Your tune is inconsistent LR. You always change it to suit the circumstances of the day. Any buyer proposing a £4m transfer budget - as McCrory did - should have had no trouble seeing those contracts out and getting the club to a more realistic spending position, Power may well prove to be good for our club. He's got a long way to go before his help proves to be a match for Black's.[/p][/quote]Total bull - and if you are going to quote me at least get it right! . What I actually said was as Black had agreed to a budget then I thought he should allow that budget to be spent - that is nothing like you were suggesting . Patey came out and said we have a budget of £4.5m of which we have £4m had been accounted for - so there was £500k left . What I actualy said and still agree with is as we had injuries that extra could have been released earlier than Jan as planned - to get us through the injuries - I never once said he should exceed the overall budget . Then come Jan - during the transfer window we could have shuffled the pack if need be with some going out to fund other coming in and never going over the agreed £4.5m . I also said if Black is setting a budget which will make a loss - as long as he is prepared to take that loss thats his choice . What I was am still am p1ssed off about is he set the budget and then just went - f**k it and left halfway through the season! . Had he gone in the summer like we saw last year and the year we got relegated to L2 - you can shuffle the pack and move people on wihtout having to sell your best players for a fraction of their cost . Also hears a thought - why did Black renew Di Canio's contract and why not simply sack him if he could tollerate him anymore? . We lost Di Canio anyway, Black lost his best friend and we as a club got completely f**ked over - so was that better off than a small protest about Di Canio going which could have been ended with why he had to sack him - which probably seen most people side with him![/p][/quote]According to Nick Watkins at the time of the embargo, "He's had his budget and then some, and has blown the lot, and now he wants more, he needs to be careful of what may happen". PdC's demands of Black were the straw that broke the camels back and there is little doubting that. What you suggest did actually happen, after a few calls from a manic PdC, Black went to bed one evening and slept on it, got up the next morning and made his mind up. Patey was already in the wings and the button was pressed. That was how NW explained it to me, and I am in no position to question that. Although it was never said I got the distinct impression that Black never really did like PdC, and his constant demands for more players hence more cash was wearing thin. Another point which heavily influenced Black was the heavy turn over of players and the fall out rate that occurred, hero to zero often in second, well you have to see his point. That is how it was told openly just outside the ticket office, and there were plenty listening with VERY raised eyebrows. Anyway, we have moved on from that and we are where we are today, still praying all will turn out OK and hopefully better than before. I sincerely hope it does. the wizard
  • Score: 2

3:43pm Fri 27 Jun 14

Wilesy says...

London Red wrote:
Wilesy wrote:
umpcah wrote:
London Red wrote:
Since 1950 wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
LydiardRED67 wrote: Perhaps I have the wrong end of the stick, but my interpretation of a feeder club is when you have a reguler supply of your own good youngsters and you agree a deal with one particular club that they will have first refusal at whatever price. Not hat I particularly like the deal we had with Spurs mind you. At the time I thought it was a means to an end for one season, however it seems that if Sherwood had remained in post, the arrangement woud have continued. As I have said before, remove the loan sysytem and this isn't an issue.
That's my interpretation too. Our situation seems to be that of a reverse feeder club. I wouldn't go quite as far as removing the loan system altogether, as it can serve a useful purpose in emergencies, but it needs a radical overhaul. Limit the size of squads allowed in the top two divisions, so that the big clubs can't hog redundant players who would otherwise be finding their own level in the game by hard work and gradual progress. Either that or they have their own reserve leagues where they can compete for first team places. The lower divisions can survive comfortably without them. Clubs would have a truer identity and the best teams would come out on top. Lydiard, shall we build a little bunker for two and get a couple of tin hats for when we need to come out for food?
Den. I agree with your concept of limiting the size of squads for the top two leagues. It would never happen though. The 'greed league' was introduced to make English clubs dominant in Europe. It has largely failed of course and totally ruined our national game in the process. The greed league would soon squeal 'level playing field' if they had a cap placed on their squad numbers unless it was Europe wide. The same as they would squeal if they had a cap on non English players they were allowed to sign. Just about had enough of our 'beautiful game at the moment. Couldn't even be bother to watch the world cup games last night. Watched a film instead. All I see now are cheats, liars, prima donnas and corruption. You even have to question the result of the opening game in Brazil!
Not so sure on failing to dominate Europe - Man U won it twice and Liverpool and Chelsea have also won it . We also have had an all English final and on numerous occassions had 2 or 3 of the semi finalists . OK it has shifted a bit back to Spain and Germany - but like us that won't last forever - especially if most of their stars head over here or Bayern continue to operate in a one team league signing anyone from their rivals who is half decent . I do agree things need to change at the top to enhance football throughout the country including our disaterous national side - limiting squads and increasing home grown quotes is part of it (and making home grown actually mean home grown!) - but loans need to stay as they are vital to young players and lower league clubs . The idea we would all survive without them is total nonsence - yes we could name teams - but the quality we deteriate dramtically only widening the gap more and more . Its like saying transfer should be banned and we can only use our youth products - Yes we would have a team but would they compete like our actual team? . Bedwell N.Thompson Oakley De Costa Jones Ferguson L.Thompson Walsh Storey Waldon Francis . Fancy watching that next season?
Fancy watching that next season? No has got to be the answer but we watched a similar team in the early 60s !
Switch Barthram in for Nathan Thompson, and that should be the line up for our reserve side, playing week in week out staking a claim for the first team. Oh hang on we don't have a reserve team, doh!
Because there would be no one to play them against - as the club explained at the time of shutting it - yet for some reason is still too hard for some people to understand!
Whatever the reason it's still a shame. Ideal for youngsters to find their feet and for players to get match fit after injuries. But instead we can use the first team for that I suppose.
[quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wilesy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]umpcah[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Since 1950[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LydiardRED67[/bold] wrote: Perhaps I have the wrong end of the stick, but my interpretation of a feeder club is when you have a reguler supply of your own good youngsters and you agree a deal with one particular club that they will have first refusal at whatever price. Not hat I particularly like the deal we had with Spurs mind you. At the time I thought it was a means to an end for one season, however it seems that if Sherwood had remained in post, the arrangement woud have continued. As I have said before, remove the loan sysytem and this isn't an issue.[/p][/quote]That's my interpretation too. Our situation seems to be that of a reverse feeder club. I wouldn't go quite as far as removing the loan system altogether, as it can serve a useful purpose in emergencies, but it needs a radical overhaul. Limit the size of squads allowed in the top two divisions, so that the big clubs can't hog redundant players who would otherwise be finding their own level in the game by hard work and gradual progress. Either that or they have their own reserve leagues where they can compete for first team places. The lower divisions can survive comfortably without them. Clubs would have a truer identity and the best teams would come out on top. Lydiard, shall we build a little bunker for two and get a couple of tin hats for when we need to come out for food?[/p][/quote]Den. I agree with your concept of limiting the size of squads for the top two leagues. It would never happen though. The 'greed league' was introduced to make English clubs dominant in Europe. It has largely failed of course and totally ruined our national game in the process. The greed league would soon squeal 'level playing field' if they had a cap placed on their squad numbers unless it was Europe wide. The same as they would squeal if they had a cap on non English players they were allowed to sign. Just about had enough of our 'beautiful game at the moment. Couldn't even be bother to watch the world cup games last night. Watched a film instead. All I see now are cheats, liars, prima donnas and corruption. You even have to question the result of the opening game in Brazil![/p][/quote]Not so sure on failing to dominate Europe - Man U won it twice and Liverpool and Chelsea have also won it . We also have had an all English final and on numerous occassions had 2 or 3 of the semi finalists . OK it has shifted a bit back to Spain and Germany - but like us that won't last forever - especially if most of their stars head over here or Bayern continue to operate in a one team league signing anyone from their rivals who is half decent . I do agree things need to change at the top to enhance football throughout the country including our disaterous national side - limiting squads and increasing home grown quotes is part of it (and making home grown actually mean home grown!) - but loans need to stay as they are vital to young players and lower league clubs . The idea we would all survive without them is total nonsence - yes we could name teams - but the quality we deteriate dramtically only widening the gap more and more . Its like saying transfer should be banned and we can only use our youth products - Yes we would have a team but would they compete like our actual team? . Bedwell N.Thompson Oakley De Costa Jones Ferguson L.Thompson Walsh Storey Waldon Francis . Fancy watching that next season?[/p][/quote]Fancy watching that next season? No has got to be the answer but we watched a similar team in the early 60s ! [ and rubbed our eyes in disbelief ! ][/p][/quote]Switch Barthram in for Nathan Thompson, and that should be the line up for our reserve side, playing week in week out staking a claim for the first team. Oh hang on we don't have a reserve team, doh![/p][/quote]Because there would be no one to play them against - as the club explained at the time of shutting it - yet for some reason is still too hard for some people to understand![/p][/quote]Whatever the reason it's still a shame. Ideal for youngsters to find their feet and for players to get match fit after injuries. But instead we can use the first team for that I suppose. Wilesy
  • Score: 0

3:46pm Fri 27 Jun 14

harley red says...

I don't like the spurs connection as we have to play a certain style to suit there players , we are SWINDON TOWN nothing to do with spurs . Let's get back to playing exciting football with attack after attack , not the shti we played last season . Nearly every game under PDC had expectations and the football was great to watch . So I hope the 2 con men fighting for control of our team both fcuk off and we can take our chances from there it could not be any worse , I have had enough of this WE SHOULD BE READING ABOUT WHAT PLAYERS WILL COME IN AND BE OUR PLAYERS NOT A LOAD OF LONES !!!!!!
I don't like the spurs connection as we have to play a certain style to suit there players , we are SWINDON TOWN nothing to do with spurs . Let's get back to playing exciting football with attack after attack , not the shti we played last season . Nearly every game under PDC had expectations and the football was great to watch . So I hope the 2 con men fighting for control of our team both fcuk off and we can take our chances from there it could not be any worse , I have had enough of this WE SHOULD BE READING ABOUT WHAT PLAYERS WILL COME IN AND BE OUR PLAYERS NOT A LOAD OF LONES !!!!!! harley red
  • Score: -7

3:47pm Fri 27 Jun 14

Archive Robin says...

Just for Fun

Breaking News……………
………………
………………
………………
..

Mondays Hearing Lunch Menu:

Nicholas Strauss QC: Lobster Bisque En Croûte with Brandy Butter (Starter), Classic Beef Wellington with Horseradish Cream and Red Wine Sauce with Honey Glazed Heritage Carrots (Main), Pineapple Soufflé with Coconut Ice Cream (Dessert) & Maury Rouge 2011, Mas Amiel, Roussillon, France (Wine)

Mr Power & Mrs Shah: Crispy Garlic & Herb Breaded Mushrooms (Starter), Chargrilled Chicken & Woodland Mushroom Risotto (Served with Vegetables) (Main), Blueberry Cheesecake (Dessert) & Barolo Red Wine (2010)

Mr McCrory & ****’s: Tandoori Paneer Pakora & Onion Bahjais (Starter), Chicken Madras (Super Hot!) with Pilau Rice & Nann Bread (Main), Chocolate Ice Cream Sundays (Dessert) & Carlsberg Export (Bottled 2014 Vintage)

Once my “insider” lets me know I will supply the rest of the weeks menu - you will wait with baited breath I’m sure!

Just thought I’d lift the doom and gloom for a while!
Just for Fun Breaking News…………… ……………… ……………… ……………… .. Mondays Hearing Lunch Menu: Nicholas Strauss QC: Lobster Bisque En Croûte with Brandy Butter (Starter), Classic Beef Wellington with Horseradish Cream and Red Wine Sauce with Honey Glazed Heritage Carrots (Main), Pineapple Soufflé with Coconut Ice Cream (Dessert) & Maury Rouge 2011, Mas Amiel, Roussillon, France (Wine) Mr Power & Mrs Shah: Crispy Garlic & Herb Breaded Mushrooms (Starter), Chargrilled Chicken & Woodland Mushroom Risotto (Served with Vegetables) (Main), Blueberry Cheesecake (Dessert) & Barolo Red Wine (2010) Mr McCrory & ****’s: Tandoori Paneer Pakora & Onion Bahjais (Starter), Chicken Madras (Super Hot!) with Pilau Rice & Nann Bread (Main), Chocolate Ice Cream Sundays (Dessert) & Carlsberg Export (Bottled 2014 Vintage) Once my “insider” lets me know I will supply the rest of the weeks menu - you will wait with baited breath I’m sure! Just thought I’d lift the doom and gloom for a while! Archive Robin
  • Score: 3

3:57pm Fri 27 Jun 14

Wilesy says...

the wizard wrote:
London Red wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
"He lost money as he chose to spend it unwisely - if you have out goings bigger than incomings you will lose money - its a simple economic fact!" Gross hypocrisy LR. Listen to yourself. You were one of those demanding that Black get Di Canio out of every hole he had dug for himself and the club. The be all and end all for you was that PDC should get everything he wanted from Black - and after all that you now accuse Black of being unwise! It's no surprise that we could have gone into administration without a new owner. (We'd probably have gone under WITH the new owner if Power hadn't got wise to McCrory.) I'd wager that the vast majority of football clubs would face imminent administration if they had to operate without financial assistance from an owner. Let's not forget that's where we'd have been in 2008 if Black & co hadn't saved the club with their genuine help. The ship wasn't sinking when Black left. He left it because he couldn't tolerate any more abuse from Di Canio - the man who could do no wrong in your eyes. The reason we ended up in such a mess is simply that McCrory was a fraud who managed to reel Patey in with his pie in the sky stories of substantial funds, new income streams and all the rest of it. Nobody denies that there were expensive contracts to deal with. Some people - you for instance - encouraged those deals, while saying "crappy little clubs" were just jealous of our spending. Your tune is inconsistent LR. You always change it to suit the circumstances of the day. Any buyer proposing a £4m transfer budget - as McCrory did - should have had no trouble seeing those contracts out and getting the club to a more realistic spending position, Power may well prove to be good for our club. He's got a long way to go before his help proves to be a match for Black's.
Total bull - and if you are going to quote me at least get it right!
.
What I actually said was as Black had agreed to a budget then I thought he should allow that budget to be spent - that is nothing like you were suggesting
.
Patey came out and said we have a budget of £4.5m of which we have £4m had been accounted for - so there was £500k left
.
What I actualy said and still agree with is as we had injuries that extra could have been released earlier than Jan as planned - to get us through the injuries - I never once said he should exceed the overall budget
.
Then come Jan - during the transfer window we could have shuffled the pack if need be with some going out to fund other coming in and never going over the agreed £4.5m
.
I also said if Black is setting a budget which will make a loss - as long as he is prepared to take that loss thats his choice
.
What I was am still am p1ssed off about is he set the budget and then just went - f**k it and left halfway through the season!
.
Had he gone in the summer like we saw last year and the year we got relegated to L2 - you can shuffle the pack and move people on wihtout having to sell your best players for a fraction of their cost
.
Also hears a thought - why did Black renew Di Canio's contract and why not simply sack him if he could tollerate him anymore?
.
We lost Di Canio anyway, Black lost his best friend and we as a club got completely f**ked over - so was that better off than a small protest about Di Canio going which could have been ended with why he had to sack him - which probably seen most people side with him!
According to Nick Watkins at the time of the embargo, "He's had his budget and then some, and has blown the lot, and now he wants more, he needs to be careful of what may happen". PdC's demands of Black were the straw that broke the camels back and there is little doubting that. What you suggest did actually happen, after a few calls from a manic PdC, Black went to bed one evening and slept on it, got up the next morning and made his mind up. Patey was already in the wings and the button was pressed. That was how NW explained it to me, and I am in no position to question that.
Although it was never said I got the distinct impression that Black never really did like PdC, and his constant demands for more players hence more cash was wearing thin. Another point which heavily influenced Black was the heavy turn over of players and the fall out rate that occurred, hero to zero often in second, well you have to see his point. That is how it was told openly just outside the ticket office, and there were plenty listening with VERY raised eyebrows. Anyway, we have moved on from that and we are where we are today, still praying all will turn out OK and hopefully better than before. I sincerely hope it does.
I'm sure if I manically phoned my boss up several times demanding a pay rise I would get one! All Black had to do was say NO! If PDC didn't like it tough. Very weak management.

Black would have been supported 100% if had had said no and PDC walked. All he had to do was make the financial situation clear, that how the budget was far greater than other equivalent clubs, emphasise PDC always wanted more, perhaps hint at administration without his generosity. Easy peasy.
[quote][p][bold]the wizard[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: "He lost money as he chose to spend it unwisely - if you have out goings bigger than incomings you will lose money - its a simple economic fact!" Gross hypocrisy LR. Listen to yourself. You were one of those demanding that Black get Di Canio out of every hole he had dug for himself and the club. The be all and end all for you was that PDC should get everything he wanted from Black - and after all that you now accuse Black of being unwise! It's no surprise that we could have gone into administration without a new owner. (We'd probably have gone under WITH the new owner if Power hadn't got wise to McCrory.) I'd wager that the vast majority of football clubs would face imminent administration if they had to operate without financial assistance from an owner. Let's not forget that's where we'd have been in 2008 if Black & co hadn't saved the club with their genuine help. The ship wasn't sinking when Black left. He left it because he couldn't tolerate any more abuse from Di Canio - the man who could do no wrong in your eyes. The reason we ended up in such a mess is simply that McCrory was a fraud who managed to reel Patey in with his pie in the sky stories of substantial funds, new income streams and all the rest of it. Nobody denies that there were expensive contracts to deal with. Some people - you for instance - encouraged those deals, while saying "crappy little clubs" were just jealous of our spending. Your tune is inconsistent LR. You always change it to suit the circumstances of the day. Any buyer proposing a £4m transfer budget - as McCrory did - should have had no trouble seeing those contracts out and getting the club to a more realistic spending position, Power may well prove to be good for our club. He's got a long way to go before his help proves to be a match for Black's.[/p][/quote]Total bull - and if you are going to quote me at least get it right! . What I actually said was as Black had agreed to a budget then I thought he should allow that budget to be spent - that is nothing like you were suggesting . Patey came out and said we have a budget of £4.5m of which we have £4m had been accounted for - so there was £500k left . What I actualy said and still agree with is as we had injuries that extra could have been released earlier than Jan as planned - to get us through the injuries - I never once said he should exceed the overall budget . Then come Jan - during the transfer window we could have shuffled the pack if need be with some going out to fund other coming in and never going over the agreed £4.5m . I also said if Black is setting a budget which will make a loss - as long as he is prepared to take that loss thats his choice . What I was am still am p1ssed off about is he set the budget and then just went - f**k it and left halfway through the season! . Had he gone in the summer like we saw last year and the year we got relegated to L2 - you can shuffle the pack and move people on wihtout having to sell your best players for a fraction of their cost . Also hears a thought - why did Black renew Di Canio's contract and why not simply sack him if he could tollerate him anymore? . We lost Di Canio anyway, Black lost his best friend and we as a club got completely f**ked over - so was that better off than a small protest about Di Canio going which could have been ended with why he had to sack him - which probably seen most people side with him![/p][/quote]According to Nick Watkins at the time of the embargo, "He's had his budget and then some, and has blown the lot, and now he wants more, he needs to be careful of what may happen". PdC's demands of Black were the straw that broke the camels back and there is little doubting that. What you suggest did actually happen, after a few calls from a manic PdC, Black went to bed one evening and slept on it, got up the next morning and made his mind up. Patey was already in the wings and the button was pressed. That was how NW explained it to me, and I am in no position to question that. Although it was never said I got the distinct impression that Black never really did like PdC, and his constant demands for more players hence more cash was wearing thin. Another point which heavily influenced Black was the heavy turn over of players and the fall out rate that occurred, hero to zero often in second, well you have to see his point. That is how it was told openly just outside the ticket office, and there were plenty listening with VERY raised eyebrows. Anyway, we have moved on from that and we are where we are today, still praying all will turn out OK and hopefully better than before. I sincerely hope it does.[/p][/quote]I'm sure if I manically phoned my boss up several times demanding a pay rise I would get one! All Black had to do was say NO! If PDC didn't like it tough. Very weak management. Black would have been supported 100% if had had said no and PDC walked. All he had to do was make the financial situation clear, that how the budget was far greater than other equivalent clubs, emphasise PDC always wanted more, perhaps hint at administration without his generosity. Easy peasy. Wilesy
  • Score: 0

3:58pm Fri 27 Jun 14

Archive Robin says...

Archive Robin wrote:
Just for Fun

Breaking News……………

��…………

………………

�……………

��..

Mondays Hearing Lunch Menu:

Nicholas Strauss QC: Lobster Bisque En Croûte with Brandy Butter (Starter), Classic Beef Wellington with Horseradish Cream and Red Wine Sauce with Honey Glazed Heritage Carrots (Main), Pineapple Soufflé with Coconut Ice Cream (Dessert) & Maury Rouge 2011, Mas Amiel, Roussillon, France (Wine)

Mr Power & Mrs Shah: Crispy Garlic & Herb Breaded Mushrooms (Starter), Chargrilled Chicken & Woodland Mushroom Risotto (Served with Vegetables) (Main), Blueberry Cheesecake (Dessert) & Barolo Red Wine (2010)

Mr McCrory & ****’s: Tandoori Paneer Pakora & Onion Bahjais (Starter), Chicken Madras (Super Hot!) with Pilau Rice & Nann Bread (Main), Chocolate Ice Cream Sundays (Dessert) & Carlsberg Export (Bottled 2014 Vintage)

Once my “insider” lets me know I will supply the rest of the weeks menu - you will wait with baited breath I’m sure!

Just thought I’d lift the doom and gloom for a while!
Just to clear something from my menu post - the part asterixed (starred if you like) out by the adver was the abbreviation of associate's and not an expletive - sorry for any confusion caused.
[quote][p][bold]Archive Robin[/bold] wrote: Just for Fun Breaking News…………… ��………… … ……………… � �…………… � ��.. Mondays Hearing Lunch Menu: Nicholas Strauss QC: Lobster Bisque En Croûte with Brandy Butter (Starter), Classic Beef Wellington with Horseradish Cream and Red Wine Sauce with Honey Glazed Heritage Carrots (Main), Pineapple Soufflé with Coconut Ice Cream (Dessert) & Maury Rouge 2011, Mas Amiel, Roussillon, France (Wine) Mr Power & Mrs Shah: Crispy Garlic & Herb Breaded Mushrooms (Starter), Chargrilled Chicken & Woodland Mushroom Risotto (Served with Vegetables) (Main), Blueberry Cheesecake (Dessert) & Barolo Red Wine (2010) Mr McCrory & ****’s: Tandoori Paneer Pakora & Onion Bahjais (Starter), Chicken Madras (Super Hot!) with Pilau Rice & Nann Bread (Main), Chocolate Ice Cream Sundays (Dessert) & Carlsberg Export (Bottled 2014 Vintage) Once my “insider” lets me know I will supply the rest of the weeks menu - you will wait with baited breath I’m sure! Just thought I’d lift the doom and gloom for a while![/p][/quote]Just to clear something from my menu post - the part asterixed (starred if you like) out by the adver was the abbreviation of associate's and not an expletive - sorry for any confusion caused. Archive Robin
  • Score: 1

4:11pm Fri 27 Jun 14

Chish and Fips says...

Archive Robin wrote:
Just for Fun

Breaking News……………

��…………

………………

�……………

��..

Mondays Hearing Lunch Menu:

Nicholas Strauss QC: Lobster Bisque En Croûte with Brandy Butter (Starter), Classic Beef Wellington with Horseradish Cream and Red Wine Sauce with Honey Glazed Heritage Carrots (Main), Pineapple Soufflé with Coconut Ice Cream (Dessert) & Maury Rouge 2011, Mas Amiel, Roussillon, France (Wine)

Mr Power & Mrs Shah: Crispy Garlic & Herb Breaded Mushrooms (Starter), Chargrilled Chicken & Woodland Mushroom Risotto (Served with Vegetables) (Main), Blueberry Cheesecake (Dessert) & Barolo Red Wine (2010)

Mr McCrory & ****’s: Tandoori Paneer Pakora & Onion Bahjais (Starter), Chicken Madras (Super Hot!) with Pilau Rice & Nann Bread (Main), Chocolate Ice Cream Sundays (Dessert) & Carlsberg Export (Bottled 2014 Vintage)

Once my “insider” lets me know I will supply the rest of the weeks menu - you will wait with baited breath I’m sure!

Just thought I’d lift the doom and gloom for a while!
Nice one AR ....Breath of fresh away from the court hum drum and also from the smug ' I told you so brigade' ... ☺
[quote][p][bold]Archive Robin[/bold] wrote: Just for Fun Breaking News…………… ��………… … ……………… �…………… � ��.. Mondays Hearing Lunch Menu: Nicholas Strauss QC: Lobster Bisque En Croûte with Brandy Butter (Starter), Classic Beef Wellington with Horseradish Cream and Red Wine Sauce with Honey Glazed Heritage Carrots (Main), Pineapple Soufflé with Coconut Ice Cream (Dessert) & Maury Rouge 2011, Mas Amiel, Roussillon, France (Wine) Mr Power & Mrs Shah: Crispy Garlic & Herb Breaded Mushrooms (Starter), Chargrilled Chicken & Woodland Mushroom Risotto (Served with Vegetables) (Main), Blueberry Cheesecake (Dessert) & Barolo Red Wine (2010) Mr McCrory & ****’s: Tandoori Paneer Pakora & Onion Bahjais (Starter), Chicken Madras (Super Hot!) with Pilau Rice & Nann Bread (Main), Chocolate Ice Cream Sundays (Dessert) & Carlsberg Export (Bottled 2014 Vintage) Once my “insider” lets me know I will supply the rest of the weeks menu - you will wait with baited breath I’m sure! Just thought I’d lift the doom and gloom for a while![/p][/quote]Nice one AR ....Breath of fresh away from the court hum drum and also from the smug ' I told you so brigade' ... ☺ Chish and Fips
  • Score: -2

4:12pm Fri 27 Jun 14

smirg kcab says...

Bring back willie Carson
Bring back willie Carson smirg kcab
  • Score: -1

4:15pm Fri 27 Jun 14

Archive Robin says...

smirg kcab wrote:
Bring back willie Carson
Talking of Carson and horses I've just seen Jed's Tuesday meal and well I'll leave you all to guess the main course!
[quote][p][bold]smirg kcab[/bold] wrote: Bring back willie Carson[/p][/quote]Talking of Carson and horses I've just seen Jed's Tuesday meal and well I'll leave you all to guess the main course! Archive Robin
  • Score: 0

4:42pm Fri 27 Jun 14

Oi Den! says...

Wilesy wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
Chaps, I was as disappointed as anyone when Black decided to call it a day but I can't be angry with someone who saved the club and kept it afloat (and then some) for 5 years. Incidentally, 5 years was the agreed term of his loans to the club. As LR knows, those loans were repayable in January 2013. I suspect he would have still been on board now if PDC could have reined in his ego but he (Black) may well have had a good personal or legal reason for making that date the deadline for disposing of the club. I am not at all sure that he offloaded it as suddenly as people say. Patey had been in place for months and his role was not really anything other than middleman in the sale. He was never a proper chairman.

I see 3 people as culpable: Di Canio for his ugly and arrogant demands (even his biggest fans would now surely agree that accusing the board of being "unambitious" was outrageous), Patey for failing to obtain a credible buyer and McCrory because he took the p1ss out of everyone associated with Swindon Town. Let's hope he gets his just desserts.

By the way Oxon, it was certainly not a case of agreeing with fredi because his statements supported the opinion we had formed of McCrory. I would have much rather been told in the same calm and rational manner, with similarly detailed statements of the facts, that our former chairman was actually a jolly good chap and would prove the doubters wrong. The point is that fredi would have had to be a superhuman genius to make all that stuff up and not catch himself out with contradictions and inconsistencies. That's why it was so clear, in my view anyway, that he was giving us the truth.
Den do you have an Andrew Black shrine at home, Alan Partidge style?
Wilesy, I just don't understand all the animosity towards the bloke. I make no apology for being very grateful to him. I can only repeat what I said earlier: there wouldn't be a word said against Black if a decent and worthy successor had taken the club on. People are pi55ed off because of the mess we're in but it's hardly Black's fault. He was badly let down by Wray's hero worship of PDC and when he finally decided to make a change he was let down by the chairman he appointed to sell the club. I still have great admiration and respect for Jeremy Wray but he was guilty of letting the tail wag the dog until the dog couldn't stand any more of it. I think it's a lesson learned for Wray. I doubt he'd make the same mistake again.
[quote][p][bold]Wilesy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: Chaps, I was as disappointed as anyone when Black decided to call it a day but I can't be angry with someone who saved the club and kept it afloat (and then some) for 5 years. Incidentally, 5 years was the agreed term of his loans to the club. As LR knows, those loans were repayable in January 2013. I suspect he would have still been on board now if PDC could have reined in his ego but he (Black) may well have had a good personal or legal reason for making that date the deadline for disposing of the club. I am not at all sure that he offloaded it as suddenly as people say. Patey had been in place for months and his role was not really anything other than middleman in the sale. He was never a proper chairman. I see 3 people as culpable: Di Canio for his ugly and arrogant demands (even his biggest fans would now surely agree that accusing the board of being "unambitious" was outrageous), Patey for failing to obtain a credible buyer and McCrory because he took the p1ss out of everyone associated with Swindon Town. Let's hope he gets his just desserts. By the way Oxon, it was certainly not a case of agreeing with fredi because his statements supported the opinion we had formed of McCrory. I would have much rather been told in the same calm and rational manner, with similarly detailed statements of the facts, that our former chairman was actually a jolly good chap and would prove the doubters wrong. The point is that fredi would have had to be a superhuman genius to make all that stuff up and not catch himself out with contradictions and inconsistencies. That's why it was so clear, in my view anyway, that he was giving us the truth.[/p][/quote]Den do you have an Andrew Black shrine at home, Alan Partidge style?[/p][/quote]Wilesy, I just don't understand all the animosity towards the bloke. I make no apology for being very grateful to him. I can only repeat what I said earlier: there wouldn't be a word said against Black if a decent and worthy successor had taken the club on. People are pi55ed off because of the mess we're in but it's hardly Black's fault. He was badly let down by Wray's hero worship of PDC and when he finally decided to make a change he was let down by the chairman he appointed to sell the club. I still have great admiration and respect for Jeremy Wray but he was guilty of letting the tail wag the dog until the dog couldn't stand any more of it. I think it's a lesson learned for Wray. I doubt he'd make the same mistake again. Oi Den!
  • Score: 0

4:59pm Fri 27 Jun 14

the wizard says...

Wilesy wrote:
the wizard wrote:
London Red wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
"He lost money as he chose to spend it unwisely - if you have out goings bigger than incomings you will lose money - its a simple economic fact!" Gross hypocrisy LR. Listen to yourself. You were one of those demanding that Black get Di Canio out of every hole he had dug for himself and the club. The be all and end all for you was that PDC should get everything he wanted from Black - and after all that you now accuse Black of being unwise! It's no surprise that we could have gone into administration without a new owner. (We'd probably have gone under WITH the new owner if Power hadn't got wise to McCrory.) I'd wager that the vast majority of football clubs would face imminent administration if they had to operate without financial assistance from an owner. Let's not forget that's where we'd have been in 2008 if Black & co hadn't saved the club with their genuine help. The ship wasn't sinking when Black left. He left it because he couldn't tolerate any more abuse from Di Canio - the man who could do no wrong in your eyes. The reason we ended up in such a mess is simply that McCrory was a fraud who managed to reel Patey in with his pie in the sky stories of substantial funds, new income streams and all the rest of it. Nobody denies that there were expensive contracts to deal with. Some people - you for instance - encouraged those deals, while saying "crappy little clubs" were just jealous of our spending. Your tune is inconsistent LR. You always change it to suit the circumstances of the day. Any buyer proposing a £4m transfer budget - as McCrory did - should have had no trouble seeing those contracts out and getting the club to a more realistic spending position, Power may well prove to be good for our club. He's got a long way to go before his help proves to be a match for Black's.
Total bull - and if you are going to quote me at least get it right!
.
What I actually said was as Black had agreed to a budget then I thought he should allow that budget to be spent - that is nothing like you were suggesting
.
Patey came out and said we have a budget of £4.5m of which we have £4m had been accounted for - so there was £500k left
.
What I actualy said and still agree with is as we had injuries that extra could have been released earlier than Jan as planned - to get us through the injuries - I never once said he should exceed the overall budget
.
Then come Jan - during the transfer window we could have shuffled the pack if need be with some going out to fund other coming in and never going over the agreed £4.5m
.
I also said if Black is setting a budget which will make a loss - as long as he is prepared to take that loss thats his choice
.
What I was am still am p1ssed off about is he set the budget and then just went - f**k it and left halfway through the season!
.
Had he gone in the summer like we saw last year and the year we got relegated to L2 - you can shuffle the pack and move people on wihtout having to sell your best players for a fraction of their cost
.
Also hears a thought - why did Black renew Di Canio's contract and why not simply sack him if he could tollerate him anymore?
.
We lost Di Canio anyway, Black lost his best friend and we as a club got completely f**ked over - so was that better off than a small protest about Di Canio going which could have been ended with why he had to sack him - which probably seen most people side with him!
According to Nick Watkins at the time of the embargo, "He's had his budget and then some, and has blown the lot, and now he wants more, he needs to be careful of what may happen". PdC's demands of Black were the straw that broke the camels back and there is little doubting that. What you suggest did actually happen, after a few calls from a manic PdC, Black went to bed one evening and slept on it, got up the next morning and made his mind up. Patey was already in the wings and the button was pressed. That was how NW explained it to me, and I am in no position to question that.
Although it was never said I got the distinct impression that Black never really did like PdC, and his constant demands for more players hence more cash was wearing thin. Another point which heavily influenced Black was the heavy turn over of players and the fall out rate that occurred, hero to zero often in second, well you have to see his point. That is how it was told openly just outside the ticket office, and there were plenty listening with VERY raised eyebrows. Anyway, we have moved on from that and we are where we are today, still praying all will turn out OK and hopefully better than before. I sincerely hope it does.
I'm sure if I manically phoned my boss up several times demanding a pay rise I would get one! All Black had to do was say NO! If PDC didn't like it tough. Very weak management.

Black would have been supported 100% if had had said no and PDC walked. All he had to do was make the financial situation clear, that how the budget was far greater than other equivalent clubs, emphasise PDC always wanted more, perhaps hint at administration without his generosity. Easy peasy.
I think that Black just got totally fed up with the charade. We had not significantly moved forward in the time he had been here despite burying several million pounds into the venture. SBC were not forthcoming at any point regarding the ground, and here once more, yet again, this man demanding more money. Where was it going to end. Fitton had gone, he lost Wray as the close friend he once was, his other partners also probably had said where are we going with this, and he already had one sale of the club fall through. Patey was on the back burner waiting to step in, so it was a very easy move to make and let somebody else flog the dead horse in the water. And on top of that the club had gone back into embargo, very easy move to make, cut your losses and walk away.
[quote][p][bold]Wilesy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the wizard[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: "He lost money as he chose to spend it unwisely - if you have out goings bigger than incomings you will lose money - its a simple economic fact!" Gross hypocrisy LR. Listen to yourself. You were one of those demanding that Black get Di Canio out of every hole he had dug for himself and the club. The be all and end all for you was that PDC should get everything he wanted from Black - and after all that you now accuse Black of being unwise! It's no surprise that we could have gone into administration without a new owner. (We'd probably have gone under WITH the new owner if Power hadn't got wise to McCrory.) I'd wager that the vast majority of football clubs would face imminent administration if they had to operate without financial assistance from an owner. Let's not forget that's where we'd have been in 2008 if Black & co hadn't saved the club with their genuine help. The ship wasn't sinking when Black left. He left it because he couldn't tolerate any more abuse from Di Canio - the man who could do no wrong in your eyes. The reason we ended up in such a mess is simply that McCrory was a fraud who managed to reel Patey in with his pie in the sky stories of substantial funds, new income streams and all the rest of it. Nobody denies that there were expensive contracts to deal with. Some people - you for instance - encouraged those deals, while saying "crappy little clubs" were just jealous of our spending. Your tune is inconsistent LR. You always change it to suit the circumstances of the day. Any buyer proposing a £4m transfer budget - as McCrory did - should have had no trouble seeing those contracts out and getting the club to a more realistic spending position, Power may well prove to be good for our club. He's got a long way to go before his help proves to be a match for Black's.[/p][/quote]Total bull - and if you are going to quote me at least get it right! . What I actually said was as Black had agreed to a budget then I thought he should allow that budget to be spent - that is nothing like you were suggesting . Patey came out and said we have a budget of £4.5m of which we have £4m had been accounted for - so there was £500k left . What I actualy said and still agree with is as we had injuries that extra could have been released earlier than Jan as planned - to get us through the injuries - I never once said he should exceed the overall budget . Then come Jan - during the transfer window we could have shuffled the pack if need be with some going out to fund other coming in and never going over the agreed £4.5m . I also said if Black is setting a budget which will make a loss - as long as he is prepared to take that loss thats his choice . What I was am still am p1ssed off about is he set the budget and then just went - f**k it and left halfway through the season! . Had he gone in the summer like we saw last year and the year we got relegated to L2 - you can shuffle the pack and move people on wihtout having to sell your best players for a fraction of their cost . Also hears a thought - why did Black renew Di Canio's contract and why not simply sack him if he could tollerate him anymore? . We lost Di Canio anyway, Black lost his best friend and we as a club got completely f**ked over - so was that better off than a small protest about Di Canio going which could have been ended with why he had to sack him - which probably seen most people side with him![/p][/quote]According to Nick Watkins at the time of the embargo, "He's had his budget and then some, and has blown the lot, and now he wants more, he needs to be careful of what may happen". PdC's demands of Black were the straw that broke the camels back and there is little doubting that. What you suggest did actually happen, after a few calls from a manic PdC, Black went to bed one evening and slept on it, got up the next morning and made his mind up. Patey was already in the wings and the button was pressed. That was how NW explained it to me, and I am in no position to question that. Although it was never said I got the distinct impression that Black never really did like PdC, and his constant demands for more players hence more cash was wearing thin. Another point which heavily influenced Black was the heavy turn over of players and the fall out rate that occurred, hero to zero often in second, well you have to see his point. That is how it was told openly just outside the ticket office, and there were plenty listening with VERY raised eyebrows. Anyway, we have moved on from that and we are where we are today, still praying all will turn out OK and hopefully better than before. I sincerely hope it does.[/p][/quote]I'm sure if I manically phoned my boss up several times demanding a pay rise I would get one! All Black had to do was say NO! If PDC didn't like it tough. Very weak management. Black would have been supported 100% if had had said no and PDC walked. All he had to do was make the financial situation clear, that how the budget was far greater than other equivalent clubs, emphasise PDC always wanted more, perhaps hint at administration without his generosity. Easy peasy.[/p][/quote]I think that Black just got totally fed up with the charade. We had not significantly moved forward in the time he had been here despite burying several million pounds into the venture. SBC were not forthcoming at any point regarding the ground, and here once more, yet again, this man demanding more money. Where was it going to end. Fitton had gone, he lost Wray as the close friend he once was, his other partners also probably had said where are we going with this, and he already had one sale of the club fall through. Patey was on the back burner waiting to step in, so it was a very easy move to make and let somebody else flog the dead horse in the water. And on top of that the club had gone back into embargo, very easy move to make, cut your losses and walk away. the wizard
  • Score: 0

5:02pm Fri 27 Jun 14

Oxon-Red says...

Oi Den! wrote:
Chaps, I was as disappointed as anyone when Black decided to call it a day but I can't be angry with someone who saved the club and kept it afloat (and then some) for 5 years. Incidentally, 5 years was the agreed term of his loans to the club. As LR knows, those loans were repayable in January 2013. I suspect he would have still been on board now if PDC could have reined in his ego but he (Black) may well have had a good personal or legal reason for making that date the deadline for disposing of the club. I am not at all sure that he offloaded it as suddenly as people say. Patey had been in place for months and his role was not really anything other than middleman in the sale. He was never a proper chairman. I see 3 people as culpable: Di Canio for his ugly and arrogant demands (even his biggest fans would now surely agree that accusing the board of being "unambitious" was outrageous), Patey for failing to obtain a credible buyer and McCrory because he took the p1ss out of everyone associated with Swindon Town. Let's hope he gets his just desserts. By the way Oxon, it was certainly not a case of agreeing with fredi because his statements supported the opinion we had formed of McCrory. I would have much rather been told in the same calm and rational manner, with similarly detailed statements of the facts, that our former chairman was actually a jolly good chap and would prove the doubters wrong. The point is that fredi would have had to be a superhuman genius to make all that stuff up and not catch himself out with contradictions and inconsistencies. That's why it was so clear, in my view anyway, that he was giving us the truth.
Den,

At the time neither you or anyone could at the time say it was a statement of fact. He got a lot right but also got things wrong. And you don't need to be a genius to make stuff up, ask Jed :-)

COYMR
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: Chaps, I was as disappointed as anyone when Black decided to call it a day but I can't be angry with someone who saved the club and kept it afloat (and then some) for 5 years. Incidentally, 5 years was the agreed term of his loans to the club. As LR knows, those loans were repayable in January 2013. I suspect he would have still been on board now if PDC could have reined in his ego but he (Black) may well have had a good personal or legal reason for making that date the deadline for disposing of the club. I am not at all sure that he offloaded it as suddenly as people say. Patey had been in place for months and his role was not really anything other than middleman in the sale. He was never a proper chairman. I see 3 people as culpable: Di Canio for his ugly and arrogant demands (even his biggest fans would now surely agree that accusing the board of being "unambitious" was outrageous), Patey for failing to obtain a credible buyer and McCrory because he took the p1ss out of everyone associated with Swindon Town. Let's hope he gets his just desserts. By the way Oxon, it was certainly not a case of agreeing with fredi because his statements supported the opinion we had formed of McCrory. I would have much rather been told in the same calm and rational manner, with similarly detailed statements of the facts, that our former chairman was actually a jolly good chap and would prove the doubters wrong. The point is that fredi would have had to be a superhuman genius to make all that stuff up and not catch himself out with contradictions and inconsistencies. That's why it was so clear, in my view anyway, that he was giving us the truth.[/p][/quote]Den, At the time neither you or anyone could at the time say it was a statement of fact. He got a lot right but also got things wrong. And you don't need to be a genius to make stuff up, ask Jed :-) COYMR Oxon-Red
  • Score: 0

5:19pm Fri 27 Jun 14

dreamofacleansheet2 says...

Black buys club, funds it generously with a business plan to over spend to get into Championship (and get money back).
Entrusts J Wray to run it for him. JEREMY WRAY MESSES IT UP. He was too weak with Di Canio, in awe of him as a West Ham fan and couldn't say know. Di Canio was a brilliant manager but as it transpires a kid in a candy shop with someone else's money.
Black had enough and sold. (personally if I'd been Black I'd have tried to take the emotion out of it and stuck it out to the summer when we would have made the Championship. But we all have the straw that breaks the camels back)...
Black's comment of "not wanting to leave a train crash" - careless but he did wipe £12m or so of debt from our club.
Black at end of tether sells to anyone.
Idea that 7 or 8 parties interested is a nonsense. Is someone says that in public they really mean 2 or 3.
Club sold to an absolute chancer..........

Now please people bin the past and concentrate on the future.

Regardless of one's interest in "characters" if Power doesn't win this we are seriously doomed. We won't be signing players, fans will rightly not turn up, we'll go into administration and we'll be in the conference or cease to exist. Remember investors in football clubs are not ten a penny, particularly those that don't own their ground.

This is seriously a time to realise the club is on the brink and if hopefully Power comes out on top the people of Swindon really really need to get behind him. Sorry too point you out LR and your accounting ways but if you can afford it this means buying a season ticket (if even if it's not cost effective).... We need to really get people behind him because it's one thing to say you'll support the Town in the Conference (as we all would) but another if we no longer exist...........
Black buys club, funds it generously with a business plan to over spend to get into Championship (and get money back). Entrusts J Wray to run it for him. JEREMY WRAY MESSES IT UP. He was too weak with Di Canio, in awe of him as a West Ham fan and couldn't say know. Di Canio was a brilliant manager but as it transpires a kid in a candy shop with someone else's money. Black had enough and sold. (personally if I'd been Black I'd have tried to take the emotion out of it and stuck it out to the summer when we would have made the Championship. But we all have the straw that breaks the camels back)... Black's comment of "not wanting to leave a train crash" - careless but he did wipe £12m or so of debt from our club. Black at end of tether sells to anyone. Idea that 7 or 8 parties interested is a nonsense. Is someone says that in public they really mean 2 or 3. Club sold to an absolute chancer.......... Now please people bin the past and concentrate on the future. Regardless of one's interest in "characters" if Power doesn't win this we are seriously doomed. We won't be signing players, fans will rightly not turn up, we'll go into administration and we'll be in the conference or cease to exist. Remember investors in football clubs are not ten a penny, particularly those that don't own their ground. This is seriously a time to realise the club is on the brink and if hopefully Power comes out on top the people of Swindon really really need to get behind him. Sorry too point you out LR and your accounting ways but if you can afford it this means buying a season ticket (if even if it's not cost effective).... We need to really get people behind him because it's one thing to say you'll support the Town in the Conference (as we all would) but another if we no longer exist........... dreamofacleansheet2
  • Score: 4

5:21pm Fri 27 Jun 14

London Red says...

Wilesy wrote:
London Red wrote:
Wilesy wrote:
umpcah wrote:
London Red wrote:
Since 1950 wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
LydiardRED67 wrote: Perhaps I have the wrong end of the stick, but my interpretation of a feeder club is when you have a reguler supply of your own good youngsters and you agree a deal with one particular club that they will have first refusal at whatever price. Not hat I particularly like the deal we had with Spurs mind you. At the time I thought it was a means to an end for one season, however it seems that if Sherwood had remained in post, the arrangement woud have continued. As I have said before, remove the loan sysytem and this isn't an issue.
That's my interpretation too. Our situation seems to be that of a reverse feeder club. I wouldn't go quite as far as removing the loan system altogether, as it can serve a useful purpose in emergencies, but it needs a radical overhaul. Limit the size of squads allowed in the top two divisions, so that the big clubs can't hog redundant players who would otherwise be finding their own level in the game by hard work and gradual progress. Either that or they have their own reserve leagues where they can compete for first team places. The lower divisions can survive comfortably without them. Clubs would have a truer identity and the best teams would come out on top. Lydiard, shall we build a little bunker for two and get a couple of tin hats for when we need to come out for food?
Den. I agree with your concept of limiting the size of squads for the top two leagues. It would never happen though. The 'greed league' was introduced to make English clubs dominant in Europe. It has largely failed of course and totally ruined our national game in the process. The greed league would soon squeal 'level playing field' if they had a cap placed on their squad numbers unless it was Europe wide. The same as they would squeal if they had a cap on non English players they were allowed to sign. Just about had enough of our 'beautiful game at the moment. Couldn't even be bother to watch the world cup games last night. Watched a film instead. All I see now are cheats, liars, prima donnas and corruption. You even have to question the result of the opening game in Brazil!
Not so sure on failing to dominate Europe - Man U won it twice and Liverpool and Chelsea have also won it . We also have had an all English final and on numerous occassions had 2 or 3 of the semi finalists . OK it has shifted a bit back to Spain and Germany - but like us that won't last forever - especially if most of their stars head over here or Bayern continue to operate in a one team league signing anyone from their rivals who is half decent . I do agree things need to change at the top to enhance football throughout the country including our disaterous national side - limiting squads and increasing home grown quotes is part of it (and making home grown actually mean home grown!) - but loans need to stay as they are vital to young players and lower league clubs . The idea we would all survive without them is total nonsence - yes we could name teams - but the quality we deteriate dramtically only widening the gap more and more . Its like saying transfer should be banned and we can only use our youth products - Yes we would have a team but would they compete like our actual team? . Bedwell N.Thompson Oakley De Costa Jones Ferguson L.Thompson Walsh Storey Waldon Francis . Fancy watching that next season?
Fancy watching that next season? No has got to be the answer but we watched a similar team in the early 60s !
Switch Barthram in for Nathan Thompson, and that should be the line up for our reserve side, playing week in week out staking a claim for the first team. Oh hang on we don't have a reserve team, doh!
Because there would be no one to play them against - as the club explained at the time of shutting it - yet for some reason is still too hard for some people to understand!
Whatever the reason it's still a shame. Ideal for youngsters to find their feet and for players to get match fit after injuries. But instead we can use the first team for that I suppose.
True - but its a football wide issue rather than an STFC specific one
.
Clubs at L1 and L2 level have realised they can not afford squads of 30+ players so therefore, do not have the reserves to put out
.
This led to them being pretty much youth games and clubs like us said its not worth the hassle as it doesn't benefit the players needing the run out
.
This is why the loan system is vital - despite the oldies views - as if we (and most other sides) can only afford 20 players we need loanees to top up the squad
.
Otherwise we simply slash our average wage and the quality drops with it!
[quote][p][bold]Wilesy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wilesy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]umpcah[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Since 1950[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LydiardRED67[/bold] wrote: Perhaps I have the wrong end of the stick, but my interpretation of a feeder club is when you have a reguler supply of your own good youngsters and you agree a deal with one particular club that they will have first refusal at whatever price. Not hat I particularly like the deal we had with Spurs mind you. At the time I thought it was a means to an end for one season, however it seems that if Sherwood had remained in post, the arrangement woud have continued. As I have said before, remove the loan sysytem and this isn't an issue.[/p][/quote]That's my interpretation too. Our situation seems to be that of a reverse feeder club. I wouldn't go quite as far as removing the loan system altogether, as it can serve a useful purpose in emergencies, but it needs a radical overhaul. Limit the size of squads allowed in the top two divisions, so that the big clubs can't hog redundant players who would otherwise be finding their own level in the game by hard work and gradual progress. Either that or they have their own reserve leagues where they can compete for first team places. The lower divisions can survive comfortably without them. Clubs would have a truer identity and the best teams would come out on top. Lydiard, shall we build a little bunker for two and get a couple of tin hats for when we need to come out for food?[/p][/quote]Den. I agree with your concept of limiting the size of squads for the top two leagues. It would never happen though. The 'greed league' was introduced to make English clubs dominant in Europe. It has largely failed of course and totally ruined our national game in the process. The greed league would soon squeal 'level playing field' if they had a cap placed on their squad numbers unless it was Europe wide. The same as they would squeal if they had a cap on non English players they were allowed to sign. Just about had enough of our 'beautiful game at the moment. Couldn't even be bother to watch the world cup games last night. Watched a film instead. All I see now are cheats, liars, prima donnas and corruption. You even have to question the result of the opening game in Brazil![/p][/quote]Not so sure on failing to dominate Europe - Man U won it twice and Liverpool and Chelsea have also won it . We also have had an all English final and on numerous occassions had 2 or 3 of the semi finalists . OK it has shifted a bit back to Spain and Germany - but like us that won't last forever - especially if most of their stars head over here or Bayern continue to operate in a one team league signing anyone from their rivals who is half decent . I do agree things need to change at the top to enhance football throughout the country including our disaterous national side - limiting squads and increasing home grown quotes is part of it (and making home grown actually mean home grown!) - but loans need to stay as they are vital to young players and lower league clubs . The idea we would all survive without them is total nonsence - yes we could name teams - but the quality we deteriate dramtically only widening the gap more and more . Its like saying transfer should be banned and we can only use our youth products - Yes we would have a team but would they compete like our actual team? . Bedwell N.Thompson Oakley De Costa Jones Ferguson L.Thompson Walsh Storey Waldon Francis . Fancy watching that next season?[/p][/quote]Fancy watching that next season? No has got to be the answer but we watched a similar team in the early 60s ! [ and rubbed our eyes in disbelief ! ][/p][/quote]Switch Barthram in for Nathan Thompson, and that should be the line up for our reserve side, playing week in week out staking a claim for the first team. Oh hang on we don't have a reserve team, doh![/p][/quote]Because there would be no one to play them against - as the club explained at the time of shutting it - yet for some reason is still too hard for some people to understand![/p][/quote]Whatever the reason it's still a shame. Ideal for youngsters to find their feet and for players to get match fit after injuries. But instead we can use the first team for that I suppose.[/p][/quote]True - but its a football wide issue rather than an STFC specific one . Clubs at L1 and L2 level have realised they can not afford squads of 30+ players so therefore, do not have the reserves to put out . This led to them being pretty much youth games and clubs like us said its not worth the hassle as it doesn't benefit the players needing the run out . This is why the loan system is vital - despite the oldies views - as if we (and most other sides) can only afford 20 players we need loanees to top up the squad . Otherwise we simply slash our average wage and the quality drops with it! London Red
  • Score: 0

5:26pm Fri 27 Jun 14

London Red says...

Wilesy wrote:
the wizard wrote:
London Red wrote:
Oi Den! wrote: "He lost money as he chose to spend it unwisely - if you have out goings bigger than incomings you will lose money - its a simple economic fact!" Gross hypocrisy LR. Listen to yourself. You were one of those demanding that Black get Di Canio out of every hole he had dug for himself and the club. The be all and end all for you was that PDC should get everything he wanted from Black - and after all that you now accuse Black of being unwise! It's no surprise that we could have gone into administration without a new owner. (We'd probably have gone under WITH the new owner if Power hadn't got wise to McCrory.) I'd wager that the vast majority of football clubs would face imminent administration if they had to operate without financial assistance from an owner. Let's not forget that's where we'd have been in 2008 if Black & co hadn't saved the club with their genuine help. The ship wasn't sinking when Black left. He left it because he couldn't tolerate any more abuse from Di Canio - the man who could do no wrong in your eyes. The reason we ended up in such a mess is simply that McCrory was a fraud who managed to reel Patey in with his pie in the sky stories of substantial funds, new income streams and all the rest of it. Nobody denies that there were expensive contracts to deal with. Some people - you for instance - encouraged those deals, while saying "crappy little clubs" were just jealous of our spending. Your tune is inconsistent LR. You always change it to suit the circumstances of the day. Any buyer proposing a £4m transfer budget - as McCrory did - should have had no trouble seeing those contracts out and getting the club to a more realistic spending position, Power may well prove to be good for our club. He's got a long way to go before his help proves to be a match for Black's.
Total bull - and if you are going to quote me at least get it right! . What I actually said was as Black had agreed to a budget then I thought he should allow that budget to be spent - that is nothing like you were suggesting . Patey came out and said we have a budget of £4.5m of which we have £4m had been accounted for - so there was £500k left . What I actualy said and still agree with is as we had injuries that extra could have been released earlier than Jan as planned - to get us through the injuries - I never once said he should exceed the overall budget . Then come Jan - during the transfer window we could have shuffled the pack if need be with some going out to fund other coming in and never going over the agreed £4.5m . I also said if Black is setting a budget which will make a loss - as long as he is prepared to take that loss thats his choice . What I was am still am p1ssed off about is he set the budget and then just went - f**k it and left halfway through the season! . Had he gone in the summer like we saw last year and the year we got relegated to L2 - you can shuffle the pack and move people on wihtout having to sell your best players for a fraction of their cost . Also hears a thought - why did Black renew Di Canio's contract and why not simply sack him if he could tollerate him anymore? . We lost Di Canio anyway, Black lost his best friend and we as a club got completely f**ked over - so was that better off than a small protest about Di Canio going which could have been ended with why he had to sack him - which probably seen most people side with him!
According to Nick Watkins at the time of the embargo, "He's had his budget and then some, and has blown the lot, and now he wants more, he needs to be careful of what may happen". PdC's demands of Black were the straw that broke the camels back and there is little doubting that. What you suggest did actually happen, after a few calls from a manic PdC, Black went to bed one evening and slept on it, got up the next morning and made his mind up. Patey was already in the wings and the button was pressed. That was how NW explained it to me, and I am in no position to question that. Although it was never said I got the distinct impression that Black never really did like PdC, and his constant demands for more players hence more cash was wearing thin. Another point which heavily influenced Black was the heavy turn over of players and the fall out rate that occurred, hero to zero often in second, well you have to see his point. That is how it was told openly just outside the ticket office, and there were plenty listening with VERY raised eyebrows. Anyway, we have moved on from that and we are where we are today, still praying all will turn out OK and hopefully better than before. I sincerely hope it does.
I'm sure if I manically phoned my boss up several times demanding a pay rise I would get one! All Black had to do was say NO! If PDC didn't like it tough. Very weak management. Black would have been supported 100% if had had said no and PDC walked. All he had to do was make the financial situation clear, that how the budget was far greater than other equivalent clubs, emphasise PDC always wanted more, perhaps hint at administration without his generosity. Easy peasy.
Exactly what I was saying - yes it would have been initially met with disbelief - but if it was made clear over the situation most fans would have come round pretty sharpish!
.
Give the choice between PdC or Black bankrolling us - most would have said Black!
[quote][p][bold]Wilesy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the wizard[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: "He lost money as he chose to spend it unwisely - if you have out goings bigger than incomings you will lose money - its a simple economic fact!" Gross hypocrisy LR. Listen to yourself. You were one of those demanding that Black get Di Canio out of every hole he had dug for himself and the club. The be all and end all for you was that PDC should get everything he wanted from Black - and after all that you now accuse Black of being unwise! It's no surprise that we could have gone into administration without a new owner. (We'd probably have gone under WITH the new owner if Power hadn't got wise to McCrory.) I'd wager that the vast majority of football clubs would face imminent administration if they had to operate without financial assistance from an owner. Let's not forget that's where we'd have been in 2008 if Black & co hadn't saved the club with their genuine help. The ship wasn't sinking when Black left. He left it because he couldn't tolerate any more abuse from Di Canio - the man who could do no wrong in your eyes. The reason we ended up in such a mess is simply that McCrory was a fraud who managed to reel Patey in with his pie in the sky stories of substantial funds, new income streams and all the rest of it. Nobody denies that there were expensive contracts to deal with. Some people - you for instance - encouraged those deals, while saying "crappy little clubs" were just jealous of our spending. Your tune is inconsistent LR. You always change it to suit the circumstances of the day. Any buyer proposing a £4m transfer budget - as McCrory did - should have had no trouble seeing those contracts out and getting the club to a more realistic spending position, Power may well prove to be good for our club. He's got a long way to go before his help proves to be a match for Black's.[/p][/quote]Total bull - and if you are going to quote me at least get it right! . What I actually said was as Black had agreed to a budget then I thought he should allow that budget to be spent - that is nothing like you were suggesting . Patey came out and said we have a budget of £4.5m of which we have £4m had been accounted for - so there was £500k left . What I actualy said and still agree with is as we had injuries that extra could have been released earlier than Jan as planned - to get us through the injuries - I never once said he should exceed the overall budget . Then come Jan - during the transfer window we could have shuffled the pack if need be with some going out to fund other coming in and never going over the agreed £4.5m . I also said if Black is setting a budget which will make a loss - as long as he is prepared to take that loss thats his choice . What I was am still am p1ssed off about is he set the budget and then just went - f**k it and left halfway through the season! . Had he gone in the summer like we saw last year and the year we got relegated to L2 - you can shuffle the pack and move people on wihtout having to sell your best players for a fraction of their cost . Also hears a thought - why did Black renew Di Canio's contract and why not simply sack him if he could tollerate him anymore? . We lost Di Canio anyway, Black lost his best friend and we as a club got completely f**ked over - so was that better off than a small protest about Di Canio going which could have been ended with why he had to sack him - which probably seen most people side with him![/p][/quote]According to Nick Watkins at the time of the embargo, "He's had his budget and then some, and has blown the lot, and now he wants more, he needs to be careful of what may happen". PdC's demands of Black were the straw that broke the camels back and there is little doubting that. What you suggest did actually happen, after a few calls from a manic PdC, Black went to bed one evening and slept on it, got up the next morning and made his mind up. Patey was already in the wings and the button was pressed. That was how NW explained it to me, and I am in no position to question that. Although it was never said I got the distinct impression that Black never really did like PdC, and his constant demands for more players hence more cash was wearing thin. Another point which heavily influenced Black was the heavy turn over of players and the fall out rate that occurred, hero to zero often in second, well you have to see his point. That is how it was told openly just outside the ticket office, and there were plenty listening with VERY raised eyebrows. Anyway, we have moved on from that and we are where we are today, still praying all will turn out OK and hopefully better than before. I sincerely hope it does.[/p][/quote]I'm sure if I manically phoned my boss up several times demanding a pay rise I would get one! All Black had to do was say NO! If PDC didn't like it tough. Very weak management. Black would have been supported 100% if had had said no and PDC walked. All he had to do was make the financial situation clear, that how the budget was far greater than other equivalent clubs, emphasise PDC always wanted more, perhaps hint at administration without his generosity. Easy peasy.[/p][/quote]Exactly what I was saying - yes it would have been initially met with disbelief - but if it was made clear over the situation most fans would have come round pretty sharpish! . Give the choice between PdC or Black bankrolling us - most would have said Black! London Red
  • Score: 1

5:33pm Fri 27 Jun 14

London Red says...

Oi Den! wrote:
Wilesy wrote:
Oi Den! wrote: Chaps, I was as disappointed as anyone when Black decided to call it a day but I can't be angry with someone who saved the club and kept it afloat (and then some) for 5 years. Incidentally, 5 years was the agreed term of his loans to the club. As LR knows, those loans were repayable in January 2013. I suspect he would have still been on board now if PDC could have reined in his ego but he (Black) may well have had a good personal or legal reason for making that date the deadline for disposing of the club. I am not at all sure that he offloaded it as suddenly as people say. Patey had been in place for months and his role was not really anything other than middleman in the sale. He was never a proper chairman. I see 3 people as culpable: Di Canio for his ugly and arrogant demands (even his biggest fans would now surely agree that accusing the board of being "unambitious" was outrageous), Patey for failing to obtain a credible buyer and McCrory because he took the p1ss out of everyone associated with Swindon Town. Let's hope he gets his just desserts. By the way Oxon, it was certainly not a case of agreeing with fredi because his statements supported the opinion we had formed of McCrory. I would have much rather been told in the same calm and rational manner, with similarly detailed statements of the facts, that our former chairman was actually a jolly good chap and would prove the doubters wrong. The point is that fredi would have had to be a superhuman genius to make all that stuff up and not catch himself out with contradictions and inconsistencies. That's why it was so clear, in my view anyway, that he was giving us the truth.
Den do you have an Andrew Black shrine at home, Alan Partidge style?
Wilesy, I just don't understand all the animosity towards the bloke. I make no apology for being very grateful to him. I can only repeat what I said earlier: there wouldn't be a word said against Black if a decent and worthy successor had taken the club on. People are pi55ed off because of the mess we're in but it's hardly Black's fault. He was badly let down by Wray's hero worship of PDC and when he finally decided to make a change he was let down by the chairman he appointed to sell the club. I still have great admiration and respect for Jeremy Wray but he was guilty of letting the tail wag the dog until the dog couldn't stand any more of it. I think it's a lesson learned for Wray. I doubt he'd make the same mistake again.
Den - that is the whole point - its because of where we ended up why lots of us are so angry
.
Had he not set a totally unrealistic timeframe to sell and actually looked to find a decent owner - be it Power without going via Jed or another consortium and we didn't have all this circus going on over the past 18 months - then yes he would have been seen in a different light
.
The simple fact is no matter how he got to the point of wanting out he couldn't care less what happened afterwards (despite saying otherwise) and simply jumped out and left the car hurtling down the packed motorway at 70mph - what happened next boom!
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wilesy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: Chaps, I was as disappointed as anyone when Black decided to call it a day but I can't be angry with someone who saved the club and kept it afloat (and then some) for 5 years. Incidentally, 5 years was the agreed term of his loans to the club. As LR knows, those loans were repayable in January 2013. I suspect he would have still been on board now if PDC could have reined in his ego but he (Black) may well have had a good personal or legal reason for making that date the deadline for disposing of the club. I am not at all sure that he offloaded it as suddenly as people say. Patey had been in place for months and his role was not really anything other than middleman in the sale. He was never a proper chairman. I see 3 people as culpable: Di Canio for his ugly and arrogant demands (even his biggest fans would now surely agree that accusing the board of being "unambitious" was outrageous), Patey for failing to obtain a credible buyer and McCrory because he took the p1ss out of everyone associated with Swindon Town. Let's hope he gets his just desserts. By the way Oxon, it was certainly not a case of agreeing with fredi because his statements supported the opinion we had formed of McCrory. I would have much rather been told in the same calm and rational manner, with similarly detailed statements of the facts, that our former chairman was actually a jolly good chap and would prove the doubters wrong. The point is that fredi would have had to be a superhuman genius to make all that stuff up and not catch himself out with contradictions and inconsistencies. That's why it was so clear, in my view anyway, that he was giving us the truth.[/p][/quote]Den do you have an Andrew Black shrine at home, Alan Partidge style?[/p][/quote]Wilesy, I just don't understand all the animosity towards the bloke. I make no apology for being very grateful to him. I can only repeat what I said earlier: there wouldn't be a word said against Black if a decent and worthy successor had taken the club on. People are pi55ed off because of the mess we're in but it's hardly Black's fault. He was badly let down by Wray's hero worship of PDC and when he finally decided to make a change he was let down by the chairman he appointed to sell the club. I still have great admiration and respect for Jeremy Wray but he was guilty of letting the tail wag the dog until the dog couldn't stand any more of it. I think it's a lesson learned for Wray. I doubt he'd make the same mistake again.[/p][/quote]Den - that is the whole point - its because of where we ended up why lots of us are so angry . Had he not set a totally unrealistic timeframe to sell and actually looked to find a decent owner - be it Power without going via Jed or another consortium and we didn't have all this circus going on over the past 18 months - then yes he would have been seen in a different light . The simple fact is no matter how he got to the point of wanting out he couldn't care less what happened afterwards (despite saying otherwise) and simply jumped out and left the car hurtling down the packed motorway at 70mph - what happened next boom! London Red
  • Score: 0

5:35pm Fri 27 Jun 14

Oi Den! says...

Oxon-Red wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
Chaps, I was as disappointed as anyone when Black decided to call it a day but I can't be angry with someone who saved the club and kept it afloat (and then some) for 5 years. Incidentally, 5 years was the agreed term of his loans to the club. As LR knows, those loans were repayable in January 2013. I suspect he would have still been on board now if PDC could have reined in his ego but he (Black) may well have had a good personal or legal reason for making that date the deadline for disposing of the club. I am not at all sure that he offloaded it as suddenly as people say. Patey had been in place for months and his role was not really anything other than middleman in the sale. He was never a proper chairman. I see 3 people as culpable: Di Canio for his ugly and arrogant demands (even his biggest fans would now surely agree that accusing the board of being "unambitious" was outrageous), Patey for failing to obtain a credible buyer and McCrory because he took the p1ss out of everyone associated with Swindon Town. Let's hope he gets his just desserts. By the way Oxon, it was certainly not a case of agreeing with fredi because his statements supported the opinion we had formed of McCrory. I would have much rather been told in the same calm and rational manner, with similarly detailed statements of the facts, that our former chairman was actually a jolly good chap and would prove the doubters wrong. The point is that fredi would have had to be a superhuman genius to make all that stuff up and not catch himself out with contradictions and inconsistencies. That's why it was so clear, in my view anyway, that he was giving us the truth.
Den,

At the time neither you or anyone could at the time say it was a statement of fact. He got a lot right but also got things wrong. And you don't need to be a genius to make stuff up, ask Jed :-)

COYMR
Haha! No, Oxon you don't have to be a genius to be a liar. McCrory is certainly living proof of that - but that's not what I said. My point was that you would have to be a genius to make up a large series of facts linked to each other, some even dependent on each other, make it all sound plausible and not give yourself away with contradictions. In short, McCrory established himself as a bullshiitter very quickly by doing just that. Enough from me on this.
[quote][p][bold]Oxon-Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: Chaps, I was as disappointed as anyone when Black decided to call it a day but I can't be angry with someone who saved the club and kept it afloat (and then some) for 5 years. Incidentally, 5 years was the agreed term of his loans to the club. As LR knows, those loans were repayable in January 2013. I suspect he would have still been on board now if PDC could have reined in his ego but he (Black) may well have had a good personal or legal reason for making that date the deadline for disposing of the club. I am not at all sure that he offloaded it as suddenly as people say. Patey had been in place for months and his role was not really anything other than middleman in the sale. He was never a proper chairman. I see 3 people as culpable: Di Canio for his ugly and arrogant demands (even his biggest fans would now surely agree that accusing the board of being "unambitious" was outrageous), Patey for failing to obtain a credible buyer and McCrory because he took the p1ss out of everyone associated with Swindon Town. Let's hope he gets his just desserts. By the way Oxon, it was certainly not a case of agreeing with fredi because his statements supported the opinion we had formed of McCrory. I would have much rather been told in the same calm and rational manner, with similarly detailed statements of the facts, that our former chairman was actually a jolly good chap and would prove the doubters wrong. The point is that fredi would have had to be a superhuman genius to make all that stuff up and not catch himself out with contradictions and inconsistencies. That's why it was so clear, in my view anyway, that he was giving us the truth.[/p][/quote]Den, At the time neither you or anyone could at the time say it was a statement of fact. He got a lot right but also got things wrong. And you don't need to be a genius to make stuff up, ask Jed :-) COYMR[/p][/quote]Haha! No, Oxon you don't have to be a genius to be a liar. McCrory is certainly living proof of that - but that's not what I said. My point was that you would have to be a genius to make up a large series of facts linked to each other, some even dependent on each other, make it all sound plausible and not give yourself away with contradictions. In short, McCrory established himself as a bullshiitter very quickly by doing just that. Enough from me on this. Oi Den!
  • Score: 0

5:45pm Fri 27 Jun 14

dazzastfc says...

London Red wrote:
Wilesy wrote:
the wizard wrote:
London Red wrote:
Oi Den! wrote: "He lost money as he chose to spend it unwisely - if you have out goings bigger than incomings you will lose money - its a simple economic fact!" Gross hypocrisy LR. Listen to yourself. You were one of those demanding that Black get Di Canio out of every hole he had dug for himself and the club. The be all and end all for you was that PDC should get everything he wanted from Black - and after all that you now accuse Black of being unwise! It's no surprise that we could have gone into administration without a new owner. (We'd probably have gone under WITH the new owner if Power hadn't got wise to McCrory.) I'd wager that the vast majority of football clubs would face imminent administration if they had to operate without financial assistance from an owner. Let's not forget that's where we'd have been in 2008 if Black & co hadn't saved the club with their genuine help. The ship wasn't sinking when Black left. He left it because he couldn't tolerate any more abuse from Di Canio - the man who could do no wrong in your eyes. The reason we ended up in such a mess is simply that McCrory was a fraud who managed to reel Patey in with his pie in the sky stories of substantial funds, new income streams and all the rest of it. Nobody denies that there were expensive contracts to deal with. Some people - you for instance - encouraged those deals, while saying "crappy little clubs" were just jealous of our spending. Your tune is inconsistent LR. You always change it to suit the circumstances of the day. Any buyer proposing a £4m transfer budget - as McCrory did - should have had no trouble seeing those contracts out and getting the club to a more realistic spending position, Power may well prove to be good for our club. He's got a long way to go before his help proves to be a match for Black's.
Total bull - and if you are going to quote me at least get it right! . What I actually said was as Black had agreed to a budget then I thought he should allow that budget to be spent - that is nothing like you were suggesting . Patey came out and said we have a budget of £4.5m of which we have £4m had been accounted for - so there was £500k left . What I actualy said and still agree with is as we had injuries that extra could have been released earlier than Jan as planned - to get us through the injuries - I never once said he should exceed the overall budget . Then come Jan - during the transfer window we could have shuffled the pack if need be with some going out to fund other coming in and never going over the agreed £4.5m . I also said if Black is setting a budget which will make a loss - as long as he is prepared to take that loss thats his choice . What I was am still am p1ssed off about is he set the budget and then just went - f**k it and left halfway through the season! . Had he gone in the summer like we saw last year and the year we got relegated to L2 - you can shuffle the pack and move people on wihtout having to sell your best players for a fraction of their cost . Also hears a thought - why did Black renew Di Canio's contract and why not simply sack him if he could tollerate him anymore? . We lost Di Canio anyway, Black lost his best friend and we as a club got completely f**ked over - so was that better off than a small protest about Di Canio going which could have been ended with why he had to sack him - which probably seen most people side with him!
According to Nick Watkins at the time of the embargo, "He's had his budget and then some, and has blown the lot, and now he wants more, he needs to be careful of what may happen". PdC's demands of Black were the straw that broke the camels back and there is little doubting that. What you suggest did actually happen, after a few calls from a manic PdC, Black went to bed one evening and slept on it, got up the next morning and made his mind up. Patey was already in the wings and the button was pressed. That was how NW explained it to me, and I am in no position to question that. Although it was never said I got the distinct impression that Black never really did like PdC, and his constant demands for more players hence more cash was wearing thin. Another point which heavily influenced Black was the heavy turn over of players and the fall out rate that occurred, hero to zero often in second, well you have to see his point. That is how it was told openly just outside the ticket office, and there were plenty listening with VERY raised eyebrows. Anyway, we have moved on from that and we are where we are today, still praying all will turn out OK and hopefully better than before. I sincerely hope it does.
I'm sure if I manically phoned my boss up several times demanding a pay rise I would get one! All Black had to do was say NO! If PDC didn't like it tough. Very weak management. Black would have been supported 100% if had had said no and PDC walked. All he had to do was make the financial situation clear, that how the budget was far greater than other equivalent clubs, emphasise PDC always wanted more, perhaps hint at administration without his generosity. Easy peasy.
Exactly what I was saying - yes it would have been initially met with disbelief - but if it was made clear over the situation most fans would have come round pretty sharpish!
.
Give the choice between PdC or Black bankrolling us - most would have said Black!
SPOT ON DEN..
LR TOTAL BULL....
YOU were the one backing pdc after we went into administration after 10 games...
by saying black should give another 1m to get use out of the hole we were in..
[quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wilesy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the wizard[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: "He lost money as he chose to spend it unwisely - if you have out goings bigger than incomings you will lose money - its a simple economic fact!" Gross hypocrisy LR. Listen to yourself. You were one of those demanding that Black get Di Canio out of every hole he had dug for himself and the club. The be all and end all for you was that PDC should get everything he wanted from Black - and after all that you now accuse Black of being unwise! It's no surprise that we could have gone into administration without a new owner. (We'd probably have gone under WITH the new owner if Power hadn't got wise to McCrory.) I'd wager that the vast majority of football clubs would face imminent administration if they had to operate without financial assistance from an owner. Let's not forget that's where we'd have been in 2008 if Black & co hadn't saved the club with their genuine help. The ship wasn't sinking when Black left. He left it because he couldn't tolerate any more abuse from Di Canio - the man who could do no wrong in your eyes. The reason we ended up in such a mess is simply that McCrory was a fraud who managed to reel Patey in with his pie in the sky stories of substantial funds, new income streams and all the rest of it. Nobody denies that there were expensive contracts to deal with. Some people - you for instance - encouraged those deals, while saying "crappy little clubs" were just jealous of our spending. Your tune is inconsistent LR. You always change it to suit the circumstances of the day. Any buyer proposing a £4m transfer budget - as McCrory did - should have had no trouble seeing those contracts out and getting the club to a more realistic spending position, Power may well prove to be good for our club. He's got a long way to go before his help proves to be a match for Black's.[/p][/quote]Total bull - and if you are going to quote me at least get it right! . What I actually said was as Black had agreed to a budget then I thought he should allow that budget to be spent - that is nothing like you were suggesting . Patey came out and said we have a budget of £4.5m of which we have £4m had been accounted for - so there was £500k left . What I actualy said and still agree with is as we had injuries that extra could have been released earlier than Jan as planned - to get us through the injuries - I never once said he should exceed the overall budget . Then come Jan - during the transfer window we could have shuffled the pack if need be with some going out to fund other coming in and never going over the agreed £4.5m . I also said if Black is setting a budget which will make a loss - as long as he is prepared to take that loss thats his choice . What I was am still am p1ssed off about is he set the budget and then just went - f**k it and left halfway through the season! . Had he gone in the summer like we saw last year and the year we got relegated to L2 - you can shuffle the pack and move people on wihtout having to sell your best players for a fraction of their cost . Also hears a thought - why did Black renew Di Canio's contract and why not simply sack him if he could tollerate him anymore? . We lost Di Canio anyway, Black lost his best friend and we as a club got completely f**ked over - so was that better off than a small protest about Di Canio going which could have been ended with why he had to sack him - which probably seen most people side with him![/p][/quote]According to Nick Watkins at the time of the embargo, "He's had his budget and then some, and has blown the lot, and now he wants more, he needs to be careful of what may happen". PdC's demands of Black were the straw that broke the camels back and there is little doubting that. What you suggest did actually happen, after a few calls from a manic PdC, Black went to bed one evening and slept on it, got up the next morning and made his mind up. Patey was already in the wings and the button was pressed. That was how NW explained it to me, and I am in no position to question that. Although it was never said I got the distinct impression that Black never really did like PdC, and his constant demands for more players hence more cash was wearing thin. Another point which heavily influenced Black was the heavy turn over of players and the fall out rate that occurred, hero to zero often in second, well you have to see his point. That is how it was told openly just outside the ticket office, and there were plenty listening with VERY raised eyebrows. Anyway, we have moved on from that and we are where we are today, still praying all will turn out OK and hopefully better than before. I sincerely hope it does.[/p][/quote]I'm sure if I manically phoned my boss up several times demanding a pay rise I would get one! All Black had to do was say NO! If PDC didn't like it tough. Very weak management. Black would have been supported 100% if had had said no and PDC walked. All he had to do was make the financial situation clear, that how the budget was far greater than other equivalent clubs, emphasise PDC always wanted more, perhaps hint at administration without his generosity. Easy peasy.[/p][/quote]Exactly what I was saying - yes it would have been initially met with disbelief - but if it was made clear over the situation most fans would have come round pretty sharpish! . Give the choice between PdC or Black bankrolling us - most would have said Black![/p][/quote]SPOT ON DEN.. LR TOTAL BULL.... YOU were the one backing pdc after we went into administration after 10 games... by saying black should give another 1m to get use out of the hole we were in.. dazzastfc
  • Score: 0

5:52pm Fri 27 Jun 14

dazzastfc says...

Oi Den! wrote:
Wilesy wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
Chaps, I was as disappointed as anyone when Black decided to call it a day but I can't be angry with someone who saved the club and kept it afloat (and then some) for 5 years. Incidentally, 5 years was the agreed term of his loans to the club. As LR knows, those loans were repayable in January 2013. I suspect he would have still been on board now if PDC could have reined in his ego but he (Black) may well have had a good personal or legal reason for making that date the deadline for disposing of the club. I am not at all sure that he offloaded it as suddenly as people say. Patey had been in place for months and his role was not really anything other than middleman in the sale. He was never a proper chairman.

I see 3 people as culpable: Di Canio for his ugly and arrogant demands (even his biggest fans would now surely agree that accusing the board of being "unambitious" was outrageous), Patey for failing to obtain a credible buyer and McCrory because he took the p1ss out of everyone associated with Swindon Town. Let's hope he gets his just desserts.

By the way Oxon, it was certainly not a case of agreeing with fredi because his statements supported the opinion we had formed of McCrory. I would have much rather been told in the same calm and rational manner, with similarly detailed statements of the facts, that our former chairman was actually a jolly good chap and would prove the doubters wrong. The point is that fredi would have had to be a superhuman genius to make all that stuff up and not catch himself out with contradictions and inconsistencies. That's why it was so clear, in my view anyway, that he was giving us the truth.
Den do you have an Andrew Black shrine at home, Alan Partidge style?
Wilesy, I just don't understand all the animosity towards the bloke. I make no apology for being very grateful to him. I can only repeat what I said earlier: there wouldn't be a word said against Black if a decent and worthy successor had taken the club on. People are pi55ed off because of the mess we're in but it's hardly Black's fault. He was badly let down by Wray's hero worship of PDC and when he finally decided to make a change he was let down by the chairman he appointed to sell the club. I still have great admiration and respect for Jeremy Wray but he was guilty of letting the tail wag the dog until the dog couldn't stand any more of it. I think it's a lesson learned for Wray. I doubt he'd make the same mistake again.
People slatting Black are VERY STRANGE STUPID PEOPLE...
IF it was not for Black and his money there would have never been a pdc managerial stint at STFC..
HOW MUCH DID BLACK PUT IN2 ARE CLUB ?..and how much did he wont back..
He could have been a right wonker and wonted it back..
.THEN WERE WOULD WE BE..??
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wilesy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: Chaps, I was as disappointed as anyone when Black decided to call it a day but I can't be angry with someone who saved the club and kept it afloat (and then some) for 5 years. Incidentally, 5 years was the agreed term of his loans to the club. As LR knows, those loans were repayable in January 2013. I suspect he would have still been on board now if PDC could have reined in his ego but he (Black) may well have had a good personal or legal reason for making that date the deadline for disposing of the club. I am not at all sure that he offloaded it as suddenly as people say. Patey had been in place for months and his role was not really anything other than middleman in the sale. He was never a proper chairman. I see 3 people as culpable: Di Canio for his ugly and arrogant demands (even his biggest fans would now surely agree that accusing the board of being "unambitious" was outrageous), Patey for failing to obtain a credible buyer and McCrory because he took the p1ss out of everyone associated with Swindon Town. Let's hope he gets his just desserts. By the way Oxon, it was certainly not a case of agreeing with fredi because his statements supported the opinion we had formed of McCrory. I would have much rather been told in the same calm and rational manner, with similarly detailed statements of the facts, that our former chairman was actually a jolly good chap and would prove the doubters wrong. The point is that fredi would have had to be a superhuman genius to make all that stuff up and not catch himself out with contradictions and inconsistencies. That's why it was so clear, in my view anyway, that he was giving us the truth.[/p][/quote]Den do you have an Andrew Black shrine at home, Alan Partidge style?[/p][/quote]Wilesy, I just don't understand all the animosity towards the bloke. I make no apology for being very grateful to him. I can only repeat what I said earlier: there wouldn't be a word said against Black if a decent and worthy successor had taken the club on. People are pi55ed off because of the mess we're in but it's hardly Black's fault. He was badly let down by Wray's hero worship of PDC and when he finally decided to make a change he was let down by the chairman he appointed to sell the club. I still have great admiration and respect for Jeremy Wray but he was guilty of letting the tail wag the dog until the dog couldn't stand any more of it. I think it's a lesson learned for Wray. I doubt he'd make the same mistake again.[/p][/quote]People slatting Black are VERY STRANGE STUPID PEOPLE... IF it was not for Black and his money there would have never been a pdc managerial stint at STFC.. HOW MUCH DID BLACK PUT IN2 ARE CLUB ?..and how much did he wont back.. He could have been a right wonker and wonted it back.. .THEN WERE WOULD WE BE..?? dazzastfc
  • Score: -4

8:54pm Fri 27 Jun 14

TheDukeOfBanbury says...

Black bottled it. Should have stayed until the end of the season and if then he still wanted out he could have put a Championship club up for sale. Everyone a winner.
We were on fire, so remember walking out of the ground away at Bournemouth thinking we are going up. Not felt that confident for a while certainly in this division that we have spent most of our history.

Black caused the motorway pile up, bad judge of character with Pate on toast and then with this piece of ***t on the bottom of my shoe.

You may not like Power but he has put money into the club and despite the budget slashed by over half we finished in a decent position. For now it's stability we need.

I never thought in my lifetime I would be subjected to another Diamandis at the club but how wrong can you be.
Let's hope we get some luck coming our way as the thought of Hereford Utd scares the hell out of me.

Soon be August and all kicks off again let's hope the scum bag is never seen again at Swindon. Even better if he is in the home end at Luton.
Black bottled it. Should have stayed until the end of the season and if then he still wanted out he could have put a Championship club up for sale. Everyone a winner. We were on fire, so remember walking out of the ground away at Bournemouth thinking we are going up. Not felt that confident for a while certainly in this division that we have spent most of our history. Black caused the motorway pile up, bad judge of character with Pate on toast and then with this piece of ***t on the bottom of my shoe. You may not like Power but he has put money into the club and despite the budget slashed by over half we finished in a decent position. For now it's stability we need. I never thought in my lifetime I would be subjected to another Diamandis at the club but how wrong can you be. Let's hope we get some luck coming our way as the thought of Hereford Utd scares the hell out of me. Soon be August and all kicks off again let's hope the scum bag is never seen again at Swindon. Even better if he is in the home end at Luton. TheDukeOfBanbury
  • Score: 5

10:12pm Fri 27 Jun 14

RamsburyRed says...

Oi Den! wrote:
Wilesy wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
Chaps, I was as disappointed as anyone when Black decided to call it a day but I can't be angry with someone who saved the club and kept it afloat (and then some) for 5 years. Incidentally, 5 years was the agreed term of his loans to the club. As LR knows, those loans were repayable in January 2013. I suspect he would have still been on board now if PDC could have reined in his ego but he (Black) may well have had a good personal or legal reason for making that date the deadline for disposing of the club. I am not at all sure that he offloaded it as suddenly as people say. Patey had been in place for months and his role was not really anything other than middleman in the sale. He was never a proper chairman.

I see 3 people as culpable: Di Canio for his ugly and arrogant demands (even his biggest fans would now surely agree that accusing the board of being "unambitious" was outrageous), Patey for failing to obtain a credible buyer and McCrory because he took the p1ss out of everyone associated with Swindon Town. Let's hope he gets his just desserts.

By the way Oxon, it was certainly not a case of agreeing with fredi because his statements supported the opinion we had formed of McCrory. I would have much rather been told in the same calm and rational manner, with similarly detailed statements of the facts, that our former chairman was actually a jolly good chap and would prove the doubters wrong. The point is that fredi would have had to be a superhuman genius to make all that stuff up and not catch himself out with contradictions and inconsistencies. That's why it was so clear, in my view anyway, that he was giving us the truth.
Den do you have an Andrew Black shrine at home, Alan Partidge style?
Wilesy, I just don't understand all the animosity towards the bloke. I make no apology for being very grateful to him. I can only repeat what I said earlier: there wouldn't be a word said against Black if a decent and worthy successor had taken the club on. People are pi55ed off because of the mess we're in but it's hardly Black's fault. He was badly let down by Wray's hero worship of PDC and when he finally decided to make a change he was let down by the chairman he appointed to sell the club. I still have great admiration and respect for Jeremy Wray but he was guilty of letting the tail wag the dog until the dog couldn't stand any more of it. I think it's a lesson learned for Wray. I doubt he'd make the same mistake again.
Den, I am very much in agreement with your assessment of Black and that period, except your regard for JW. It's obvious that Black had no interest in the detail of the club, and very much left that to the Chairman. The Chairman should have ensured that the budget was adhered to and the spending kept under control. That was a failure of management.
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wilesy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: Chaps, I was as disappointed as anyone when Black decided to call it a day but I can't be angry with someone who saved the club and kept it afloat (and then some) for 5 years. Incidentally, 5 years was the agreed term of his loans to the club. As LR knows, those loans were repayable in January 2013. I suspect he would have still been on board now if PDC could have reined in his ego but he (Black) may well have had a good personal or legal reason for making that date the deadline for disposing of the club. I am not at all sure that he offloaded it as suddenly as people say. Patey had been in place for months and his role was not really anything other than middleman in the sale. He was never a proper chairman. I see 3 people as culpable: Di Canio for his ugly and arrogant demands (even his biggest fans would now surely agree that accusing the board of being "unambitious" was outrageous), Patey for failing to obtain a credible buyer and McCrory because he took the p1ss out of everyone associated with Swindon Town. Let's hope he gets his just desserts. By the way Oxon, it was certainly not a case of agreeing with fredi because his statements supported the opinion we had formed of McCrory. I would have much rather been told in the same calm and rational manner, with similarly detailed statements of the facts, that our former chairman was actually a jolly good chap and would prove the doubters wrong. The point is that fredi would have had to be a superhuman genius to make all that stuff up and not catch himself out with contradictions and inconsistencies. That's why it was so clear, in my view anyway, that he was giving us the truth.[/p][/quote]Den do you have an Andrew Black shrine at home, Alan Partidge style?[/p][/quote]Wilesy, I just don't understand all the animosity towards the bloke. I make no apology for being very grateful to him. I can only repeat what I said earlier: there wouldn't be a word said against Black if a decent and worthy successor had taken the club on. People are pi55ed off because of the mess we're in but it's hardly Black's fault. He was badly let down by Wray's hero worship of PDC and when he finally decided to make a change he was let down by the chairman he appointed to sell the club. I still have great admiration and respect for Jeremy Wray but he was guilty of letting the tail wag the dog until the dog couldn't stand any more of it. I think it's a lesson learned for Wray. I doubt he'd make the same mistake again.[/p][/quote]Den, I am very much in agreement with your assessment of Black and that period, except your regard for JW. It's obvious that Black had no interest in the detail of the club, and very much left that to the Chairman. The Chairman should have ensured that the budget was adhered to and the spending kept under control. That was a failure of management. RamsburyRed
  • Score: 1

10:45pm Fri 27 Jun 14

Oi Den! says...

RamsburyRed wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
Wilesy wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
Chaps, I was as disappointed as anyone when Black decided to call it a day but I can't be angry with someone who saved the club and kept it afloat (and then some) for 5 years. Incidentally, 5 years was the agreed term of his loans to the club. As LR knows, those loans were repayable in January 2013. I suspect he would have still been on board now if PDC could have reined in his ego but he (Black) may well have had a good personal or legal reason for making that date the deadline for disposing of the club. I am not at all sure that he offloaded it as suddenly as people say. Patey had been in place for months and his role was not really anything other than middleman in the sale. He was never a proper chairman.

I see 3 people as culpable: Di Canio for his ugly and arrogant demands (even his biggest fans would now surely agree that accusing the board of being "unambitious" was outrageous), Patey for failing to obtain a credible buyer and McCrory because he took the p1ss out of everyone associated with Swindon Town. Let's hope he gets his just desserts.

By the way Oxon, it was certainly not a case of agreeing with fredi because his statements supported the opinion we had formed of McCrory. I would have much rather been told in the same calm and rational manner, with similarly detailed statements of the facts, that our former chairman was actually a jolly good chap and would prove the doubters wrong. The point is that fredi would have had to be a superhuman genius to make all that stuff up and not catch himself out with contradictions and inconsistencies. That's why it was so clear, in my view anyway, that he was giving us the truth.
Den do you have an Andrew Black shrine at home, Alan Partidge style?
Wilesy, I just don't understand all the animosity towards the bloke. I make no apology for being very grateful to him. I can only repeat what I said earlier: there wouldn't be a word said against Black if a decent and worthy successor had taken the club on. People are pi55ed off because of the mess we're in but it's hardly Black's fault. He was badly let down by Wray's hero worship of PDC and when he finally decided to make a change he was let down by the chairman he appointed to sell the club. I still have great admiration and respect for Jeremy Wray but he was guilty of letting the tail wag the dog until the dog couldn't stand any more of it. I think it's a lesson learned for Wray. I doubt he'd make the same mistake again.
Den, I am very much in agreement with your assessment of Black and that period, except your regard for JW. It's obvious that Black had no interest in the detail of the club, and very much left that to the Chairman. The Chairman should have ensured that the budget was adhered to and the spending kept under control. That was a failure of management.
Absolutely no disagreement from me on that. Perhaps our only difference is that I believe Wray was an otherwise excellent chairman who will write the c0ck-up off to experience. But he made that misjudgment for the right reasons - wanting success for the club - so I find it difficult to be too harsh on him. I have no problem with being harsh on McCrory because I believe he was in it for just one reason, to fill his own boots as quickly as he could.
[quote][p][bold]RamsburyRed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wilesy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: Chaps, I was as disappointed as anyone when Black decided to call it a day but I can't be angry with someone who saved the club and kept it afloat (and then some) for 5 years. Incidentally, 5 years was the agreed term of his loans to the club. As LR knows, those loans were repayable in January 2013. I suspect he would have still been on board now if PDC could have reined in his ego but he (Black) may well have had a good personal or legal reason for making that date the deadline for disposing of the club. I am not at all sure that he offloaded it as suddenly as people say. Patey had been in place for months and his role was not really anything other than middleman in the sale. He was never a proper chairman. I see 3 people as culpable: Di Canio for his ugly and arrogant demands (even his biggest fans would now surely agree that accusing the board of being "unambitious" was outrageous), Patey for failing to obtain a credible buyer and McCrory because he took the p1ss out of everyone associated with Swindon Town. Let's hope he gets his just desserts. By the way Oxon, it was certainly not a case of agreeing with fredi because his statements supported the opinion we had formed of McCrory. I would have much rather been told in the same calm and rational manner, with similarly detailed statements of the facts, that our former chairman was actually a jolly good chap and would prove the doubters wrong. The point is that fredi would have had to be a superhuman genius to make all that stuff up and not catch himself out with contradictions and inconsistencies. That's why it was so clear, in my view anyway, that he was giving us the truth.[/p][/quote]Den do you have an Andrew Black shrine at home, Alan Partidge style?[/p][/quote]Wilesy, I just don't understand all the animosity towards the bloke. I make no apology for being very grateful to him. I can only repeat what I said earlier: there wouldn't be a word said against Black if a decent and worthy successor had taken the club on. People are pi55ed off because of the mess we're in but it's hardly Black's fault. He was badly let down by Wray's hero worship of PDC and when he finally decided to make a change he was let down by the chairman he appointed to sell the club. I still have great admiration and respect for Jeremy Wray but he was guilty of letting the tail wag the dog until the dog couldn't stand any more of it. I think it's a lesson learned for Wray. I doubt he'd make the same mistake again.[/p][/quote]Den, I am very much in agreement with your assessment of Black and that period, except your regard for JW. It's obvious that Black had no interest in the detail of the club, and very much left that to the Chairman. The Chairman should have ensured that the budget was adhered to and the spending kept under control. That was a failure of management.[/p][/quote]Absolutely no disagreement from me on that. Perhaps our only difference is that I believe Wray was an otherwise excellent chairman who will write the c0ck-up off to experience. But he made that misjudgment for the right reasons - wanting success for the club - so I find it difficult to be too harsh on him. I have no problem with being harsh on McCrory because I believe he was in it for just one reason, to fill his own boots as quickly as he could. Oi Den!
  • Score: 1

8:02am Sat 28 Jun 14

umpcah says...

RamsburyRed wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
Wilesy wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
Chaps, I was as disappointed as anyone when Black decided to call it a day but I can't be angry with someone who saved the club and kept it afloat (and then some) for 5 years. Incidentally, 5 years was the agreed term of his loans to the club. As LR knows, those loans were repayable in January 2013. I suspect he would have still been on board now if PDC could have reined in his ego but he (Black) may well have had a good personal or legal reason for making that date the deadline for disposing of the club. I am not at all sure that he offloaded it as suddenly as people say. Patey had been in place for months and his role was not really anything other than middleman in the sale. He was never a proper chairman.

I see 3 people as culpable: Di Canio for his ugly and arrogant demands (even his biggest fans would now surely agree that accusing the board of being "unambitious" was outrageous), Patey for failing to obtain a credible buyer and McCrory because he took the p1ss out of everyone associated with Swindon Town. Let's hope he gets his just desserts.

By the way Oxon, it was certainly not a case of agreeing with fredi because his statements supported the opinion we had formed of McCrory. I would have much rather been told in the same calm and rational manner, with similarly detailed statements of the facts, that our former chairman was actually a jolly good chap and would prove the doubters wrong. The point is that fredi would have had to be a superhuman genius to make all that stuff up and not catch himself out with contradictions and inconsistencies. That's why it was so clear, in my view anyway, that he was giving us the truth.
Den do you have an Andrew Black shrine at home, Alan Partidge style?
Wilesy, I just don't understand all the animosity towards the bloke. I make no apology for being very grateful to him. I can only repeat what I said earlier: there wouldn't be a word said against Black if a decent and worthy successor had taken the club on. People are pi55ed off because of the mess we're in but it's hardly Black's fault. He was badly let down by Wray's hero worship of PDC and when he finally decided to make a change he was let down by the chairman he appointed to sell the club. I still have great admiration and respect for Jeremy Wray but he was guilty of letting the tail wag the dog until the dog couldn't stand any more of it. I think it's a lesson learned for Wray. I doubt he'd make the same mistake again.
Den, I am very much in agreement with your assessment of Black and that period, except your regard for JW. It's obvious that Black had no interest in the detail of the club, and very much left that to the Chairman. The Chairman should have ensured that the budget was adhered to and the spending kept under control. That was a failure of management.
" The Chairman should have ensured that the budget was adhered to and the spending kept under control. That was a failure of management." I agree 100% ! Di Canio was spending as if the STFC bank account was a bottomless pit to dip into . Foreign players who were not up to it were being accumulated and a brake on spending was essential but all Di Canio could do was show off to get his own way all the time. Wray was just carried along by the stream i.m.o. It was an exciting period for the fans though !
[quote][p][bold]RamsburyRed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wilesy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: Chaps, I was as disappointed as anyone when Black decided to call it a day but I can't be angry with someone who saved the club and kept it afloat (and then some) for 5 years. Incidentally, 5 years was the agreed term of his loans to the club. As LR knows, those loans were repayable in January 2013. I suspect he would have still been on board now if PDC could have reined in his ego but he (Black) may well have had a good personal or legal reason for making that date the deadline for disposing of the club. I am not at all sure that he offloaded it as suddenly as people say. Patey had been in place for months and his role was not really anything other than middleman in the sale. He was never a proper chairman. I see 3 people as culpable: Di Canio for his ugly and arrogant demands (even his biggest fans would now surely agree that accusing the board of being "unambitious" was outrageous), Patey for failing to obtain a credible buyer and McCrory because he took the p1ss out of everyone associated with Swindon Town. Let's hope he gets his just desserts. By the way Oxon, it was certainly not a case of agreeing with fredi because his statements supported the opinion we had formed of McCrory. I would have much rather been told in the same calm and rational manner, with similarly detailed statements of the facts, that our former chairman was actually a jolly good chap and would prove the doubters wrong. The point is that fredi would have had to be a superhuman genius to make all that stuff up and not catch himself out with contradictions and inconsistencies. That's why it was so clear, in my view anyway, that he was giving us the truth.[/p][/quote]Den do you have an Andrew Black shrine at home, Alan Partidge style?[/p][/quote]Wilesy, I just don't understand all the animosity towards the bloke. I make no apology for being very grateful to him. I can only repeat what I said earlier: there wouldn't be a word said against Black if a decent and worthy successor had taken the club on. People are pi55ed off because of the mess we're in but it's hardly Black's fault. He was badly let down by Wray's hero worship of PDC and when he finally decided to make a change he was let down by the chairman he appointed to sell the club. I still have great admiration and respect for Jeremy Wray but he was guilty of letting the tail wag the dog until the dog couldn't stand any more of it. I think it's a lesson learned for Wray. I doubt he'd make the same mistake again.[/p][/quote]Den, I am very much in agreement with your assessment of Black and that period, except your regard for JW. It's obvious that Black had no interest in the detail of the club, and very much left that to the Chairman. The Chairman should have ensured that the budget was adhered to and the spending kept under control. That was a failure of management.[/p][/quote]" The Chairman should have ensured that the budget was adhered to and the spending kept under control. That was a failure of management." I agree 100% ! Di Canio was spending as if the STFC bank account was a bottomless pit to dip into . Foreign players who were not up to it were being accumulated and a brake on spending was essential but all Di Canio could do was show off to get his own way all the time. Wray was just carried along by the stream i.m.o. It was an exciting period for the fans though ! umpcah
  • Score: 1

9:36am Sat 28 Jun 14

the don69 says...

umpcah wrote:
RamsburyRed wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
Wilesy wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
Chaps, I was as disappointed as anyone when Black decided to call it a day but I can't be angry with someone who saved the club and kept it afloat (and then some) for 5 years. Incidentally, 5 years was the agreed term of his loans to the club. As LR knows, those loans were repayable in January 2013. I suspect he would have still been on board now if PDC could have reined in his ego but he (Black) may well have had a good personal or legal reason for making that date the deadline for disposing of the club. I am not at all sure that he offloaded it as suddenly as people say. Patey had been in place for months and his role was not really anything other than middleman in the sale. He was never a proper chairman.

I see 3 people as culpable: Di Canio for his ugly and arrogant demands (even his biggest fans would now surely agree that accusing the board of being "unambitious" was outrageous), Patey for failing to obtain a credible buyer and McCrory because he took the p1ss out of everyone associated with Swindon Town. Let's hope he gets his just desserts.

By the way Oxon, it was certainly not a case of agreeing with fredi because his statements supported the opinion we had formed of McCrory. I would have much rather been told in the same calm and rational manner, with similarly detailed statements of the facts, that our former chairman was actually a jolly good chap and would prove the doubters wrong. The point is that fredi would have had to be a superhuman genius to make all that stuff up and not catch himself out with contradictions and inconsistencies. That's why it was so clear, in my view anyway, that he was giving us the truth.
Den do you have an Andrew Black shrine at home, Alan Partidge style?
Wilesy, I just don't understand all the animosity towards the bloke. I make no apology for being very grateful to him. I can only repeat what I said earlier: there wouldn't be a word said against Black if a decent and worthy successor had taken the club on. People are pi55ed off because of the mess we're in but it's hardly Black's fault. He was badly let down by Wray's hero worship of PDC and when he finally decided to make a change he was let down by the chairman he appointed to sell the club. I still have great admiration and respect for Jeremy Wray but he was guilty of letting the tail wag the dog until the dog couldn't stand any more of it. I think it's a lesson learned for Wray. I doubt he'd make the same mistake again.
Den, I am very much in agreement with your assessment of Black and that period, except your regard for JW. It's obvious that Black had no interest in the detail of the club, and very much left that to the Chairman. The Chairman should have ensured that the budget was adhered to and the spending kept under control. That was a failure of management.
" The Chairman should have ensured that the budget was adhered to and the spending kept under control. That was a failure of management." I agree 100% ! Di Canio was spending as if the STFC bank account was a bottomless pit to dip into . Foreign players who were not up to it were being accumulated and a brake on spending was essential but all Di Canio could do was show off to get his own way all the time. Wray was just carried along by the stream i.m.o. It was an exciting period for the fans though !
Umpcah spot on, how Den thinks Wray was an excellent chairman beggars belief! if a chairman lets his manager run up huge debts, taking black for a mug and in the end made him dump the club and run for the hills, no matter who wins this case it's very worrying for all true fans of STFC that we're back in the brown stuff again and our future looks very bleak indeed!!!!!!!!
[quote][p][bold]umpcah[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RamsburyRed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wilesy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: Chaps, I was as disappointed as anyone when Black decided to call it a day but I can't be angry with someone who saved the club and kept it afloat (and then some) for 5 years. Incidentally, 5 years was the agreed term of his loans to the club. As LR knows, those loans were repayable in January 2013. I suspect he would have still been on board now if PDC could have reined in his ego but he (Black) may well have had a good personal or legal reason for making that date the deadline for disposing of the club. I am not at all sure that he offloaded it as suddenly as people say. Patey had been in place for months and his role was not really anything other than middleman in the sale. He was never a proper chairman. I see 3 people as culpable: Di Canio for his ugly and arrogant demands (even his biggest fans would now surely agree that accusing the board of being "unambitious" was outrageous), Patey for failing to obtain a credible buyer and McCrory because he took the p1ss out of everyone associated with Swindon Town. Let's hope he gets his just desserts. By the way Oxon, it was certainly not a case of agreeing with fredi because his statements supported the opinion we had formed of McCrory. I would have much rather been told in the same calm and rational manner, with similarly detailed statements of the facts, that our former chairman was actually a jolly good chap and would prove the doubters wrong. The point is that fredi would have had to be a superhuman genius to make all that stuff up and not catch himself out with contradictions and inconsistencies. That's why it was so clear, in my view anyway, that he was giving us the truth.[/p][/quote]Den do you have an Andrew Black shrine at home, Alan Partidge style?[/p][/quote]Wilesy, I just don't understand all the animosity towards the bloke. I make no apology for being very grateful to him. I can only repeat what I said earlier: there wouldn't be a word said against Black if a decent and worthy successor had taken the club on. People are pi55ed off because of the mess we're in but it's hardly Black's fault. He was badly let down by Wray's hero worship of PDC and when he finally decided to make a change he was let down by the chairman he appointed to sell the club. I still have great admiration and respect for Jeremy Wray but he was guilty of letting the tail wag the dog until the dog couldn't stand any more of it. I think it's a lesson learned for Wray. I doubt he'd make the same mistake again.[/p][/quote]Den, I am very much in agreement with your assessment of Black and that period, except your regard for JW. It's obvious that Black had no interest in the detail of the club, and very much left that to the Chairman. The Chairman should have ensured that the budget was adhered to and the spending kept under control. That was a failure of management.[/p][/quote]" The Chairman should have ensured that the budget was adhered to and the spending kept under control. That was a failure of management." I agree 100% ! Di Canio was spending as if the STFC bank account was a bottomless pit to dip into . Foreign players who were not up to it were being accumulated and a brake on spending was essential but all Di Canio could do was show off to get his own way all the time. Wray was just carried along by the stream i.m.o. It was an exciting period for the fans though ![/p][/quote]Umpcah spot on, how Den thinks Wray was an excellent chairman beggars belief! if a chairman lets his manager run up huge debts, taking black for a mug and in the end made him dump the club and run for the hills, no matter who wins this case it's very worrying for all true fans of STFC that we're back in the brown stuff again and our future looks very bleak indeed!!!!!!!! the don69
  • Score: -1

9:58am Sat 28 Jun 14

Oi Den! says...

Don, I said Wray was an OTHERWISE excellent chairman. Almost every Town fan thought the same. It's just that many seem to have conveniently forgotten it now. I accept he c0cked up with Di Canio and yes, it was a massive mistake but does that mean we pretend he was useless at everything? I say he communicated brilliantly with the fans, was always dignified and informative with the media and I'd bet that he was a good ambassador for our club in boardrooms up and down the country. The thing that really beggars belief is that some people actually preferred McCrory with his blatant lies, oafish behaviour and unsavoury associates.
Don, I said Wray was an OTHERWISE excellent chairman. Almost every Town fan thought the same. It's just that many seem to have conveniently forgotten it now. I accept he c0cked up with Di Canio and yes, it was a massive mistake but does that mean we pretend he was useless at everything? I say he communicated brilliantly with the fans, was always dignified and informative with the media and I'd bet that he was a good ambassador for our club in boardrooms up and down the country. The thing that really beggars belief is that some people actually preferred McCrory with his blatant lies, oafish behaviour and unsavoury associates. Oi Den!
  • Score: 0

10:08am Sat 28 Jun 14

Davidsyrett says...

The bottom line of all of this is the last owners where to blame for the mess we are in now. I'm struggling to understand how some are still supportive of them.

After their 5 years in charge we were still in the 3rd tire of English football, yet had a huge wage bill that was unsustainable. OK a few exciting moments with play-offs, 1st season of PDC and JPT final, but league wise noting had changed. Was it really all worth it? Had JW brought a sound manager after Wilson, I have no doubt with the money Black was pumping into the club at the time, we would have been in the Championship by now.

Then with the club reaching financial melt down due to PDC's reckless spending and JW stupidity agreeing to it, Black did a runner.

If Black had had any real interest in the club, he would have taken his time to find some decent consortium to take it over. After all it was Black's decision to hand to club over to Jed, why, because the club was in such a financial mess at the time that no-one else would touch it with a barge pole and Black wanted out.
The bottom line of all of this is the last owners where to blame for the mess we are in now. I'm struggling to understand how some are still supportive of them. After their 5 years in charge we were still in the 3rd tire of English football, yet had a huge wage bill that was unsustainable. OK a few exciting moments with play-offs, 1st season of PDC and JPT final, but league wise noting had changed. Was it really all worth it? Had JW brought a sound manager after Wilson, I have no doubt with the money Black was pumping into the club at the time, we would have been in the Championship by now. Then with the club reaching financial melt down due to PDC's reckless spending and JW stupidity agreeing to it, Black did a runner. If Black had had any real interest in the club, he would have taken his time to find some decent consortium to take it over. After all it was Black's decision to hand to club over to Jed, why, because the club was in such a financial mess at the time that no-one else would touch it with a barge pole and Black wanted out. Davidsyrett
  • Score: -1

10:12am Sat 28 Jun 14

Davidsyrett says...

Oi Den! wrote:
Don, I said Wray was an OTHERWISE excellent chairman. Almost every Town fan thought the same. It's just that many seem to have conveniently forgotten it now. I accept he c0cked up with Di Canio and yes, it was a massive mistake but does that mean we pretend he was useless at everything? I say he communicated brilliantly with the fans, was always dignified and informative with the media and I'd bet that he was a good ambassador for our club in boardrooms up and down the country. The thing that really beggars belief is that some people actually preferred McCrory with his blatant lies, oafish behaviour and unsavoury associates.
Den,. JW nearly wrecked our club!! How can you stand up for him, he was a total idiot in agreeing to PDC's demands! But other than that he was a good chairman!!!..beggars believe.
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: Don, I said Wray was an OTHERWISE excellent chairman. Almost every Town fan thought the same. It's just that many seem to have conveniently forgotten it now. I accept he c0cked up with Di Canio and yes, it was a massive mistake but does that mean we pretend he was useless at everything? I say he communicated brilliantly with the fans, was always dignified and informative with the media and I'd bet that he was a good ambassador for our club in boardrooms up and down the country. The thing that really beggars belief is that some people actually preferred McCrory with his blatant lies, oafish behaviour and unsavoury associates.[/p][/quote]Den,. JW nearly wrecked our club!! How can you stand up for him, he was a total idiot in agreeing to PDC's demands! But other than that he was a good chairman!!!..beggars believe. Davidsyrett
  • Score: 0

10:25am Sat 28 Jun 14

the don69 says...

Davidsyrett wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
Don, I said Wray was an OTHERWISE excellent chairman. Almost every Town fan thought the same. It's just that many seem to have conveniently forgotten it now. I accept he c0cked up with Di Canio and yes, it was a massive mistake but does that mean we pretend he was useless at everything? I say he communicated brilliantly with the fans, was always dignified and informative with the media and I'd bet that he was a good ambassador for our club in boardrooms up and down the country. The thing that really beggars belief is that some people actually preferred McCrory with his blatant lies, oafish behaviour and unsavoury associates.
Den,. JW nearly wrecked our club!! How can you stand up for him, he was a total idiot in agreeing to PDC's demands! But other than that he was a good chairman!!!..beggars believe.
Well said David, you can't be a excellent chairman (OTHERWISE) Den, that's like saying to your bank manager I've bankrupted the company,but other than that ol boy I'm an excellent chairman!!!!!!!!!!!!
[quote][p][bold]Davidsyrett[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: Don, I said Wray was an OTHERWISE excellent chairman. Almost every Town fan thought the same. It's just that many seem to have conveniently forgotten it now. I accept he c0cked up with Di Canio and yes, it was a massive mistake but does that mean we pretend he was useless at everything? I say he communicated brilliantly with the fans, was always dignified and informative with the media and I'd bet that he was a good ambassador for our club in boardrooms up and down the country. The thing that really beggars belief is that some people actually preferred McCrory with his blatant lies, oafish behaviour and unsavoury associates.[/p][/quote]Den,. JW nearly wrecked our club!! How can you stand up for him, he was a total idiot in agreeing to PDC's demands! But other than that he was a good chairman!!!..beggars believe.[/p][/quote]Well said David, you can't be a excellent chairman (OTHERWISE) Den, that's like saying to your bank manager I've bankrupted the company,but other than that ol boy I'm an excellent chairman!!!!!!!!!!!! the don69
  • Score: 0

11:07am Sat 28 Jun 14

Oi Den! says...

Wray did not come close to wrecking the club. He was certainly partly responsible for Black leaving but he was always going to leave at some point. The problem was that we got taken over by somebody who was not able or willing to give the club financial support. If McCrory was what he pretended to be, all this debate and criticism of the previous regime wouldn't be happening

Yes, I'll defend Wray because I think he's a good bloke who made a big mistake that he'll have learned from. If he becomes chairman of another club - or even STFC again - he'll do a great job.
Wray did not come close to wrecking the club. He was certainly partly responsible for Black leaving but he was always going to leave at some point. The problem was that we got taken over by somebody who was not able or willing to give the club financial support. If McCrory was what he pretended to be, all this debate and criticism of the previous regime wouldn't be happening Yes, I'll defend Wray because I think he's a good bloke who made a big mistake that he'll have learned from. If he becomes chairman of another club - or even STFC again - he'll do a great job. Oi Den!
  • Score: -1

11:29am Sat 28 Jun 14

Davidsyrett says...

Oi Den! wrote:
Wray did not come close to wrecking the club. He was certainly partly responsible for Black leaving but he was always going to leave at some point. The problem was that we got taken over by somebody who was not able or willing to give the club financial support. If McCrory was what he pretended to be, all this debate and criticism of the previous regime wouldn't be happening

Yes, I'll defend Wray because I think he's a good bloke who made a big mistake that he'll have learned from. If he becomes chairman of another club - or even STFC again - he'll do a great job.
Den, you don't really believe that do you?
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: Wray did not come close to wrecking the club. He was certainly partly responsible for Black leaving but he was always going to leave at some point. The problem was that we got taken over by somebody who was not able or willing to give the club financial support. If McCrory was what he pretended to be, all this debate and criticism of the previous regime wouldn't be happening Yes, I'll defend Wray because I think he's a good bloke who made a big mistake that he'll have learned from. If he becomes chairman of another club - or even STFC again - he'll do a great job.[/p][/quote]Den, you don't really believe that do you? Davidsyrett
  • Score: 0

2:24pm Sat 28 Jun 14

the wizard says...

Oi Den! wrote:
Wray did not come close to wrecking the club. He was certainly partly responsible for Black leaving but he was always going to leave at some point. The problem was that we got taken over by somebody who was not able or willing to give the club financial support. If McCrory was what he pretended to be, all this debate and criticism of the previous regime wouldn't be happening

Yes, I'll defend Wray because I think he's a good bloke who made a big mistake that he'll have learned from. If he becomes chairman of another club - or even STFC again - he'll do a great job.
Den,I think the whole episode was extremely regrettable. To a point Wray has similar "faults" to Power. They put trust in others that led to trouble, very regrettable trouble. Wray to a point was besotted by PDC, and during this period we as supporters enjoyed a fantastic relationship with our Chairman.
He was open, charismatic, welcoming, had an ear for everybody, had infectious enthusiasm not only reserved for the club but embraced us the supporters as well. Sadly his long term friendship with Black was sullied and soured, and I think we all felt for him, a decent man, who was all too easily led by an overpowering dominant person who he took an gamble on, and gave a chance too. The payback from PDC was not deserved in the personal toil and harm it did to him, and he deserved much better from the Italian who abused their relationship to further his own ends. Big shame.

Fast forward to the present day, and he again is Jed abusing Power in much the same way. I hope Wray has learned a lesson on how not to trust some people and how some are best kept at an arms length. Would I have him back even in a diluted form, the answer is YES as he is a decent guy who leaned the hard way, and tbh, we've all had some of that.I would also add, he was probably one of the best ambassadors this club has ever had, and for once we had somebody who could not only deal with the media but also wanted to be involved at every level.
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: Wray did not come close to wrecking the club. He was certainly partly responsible for Black leaving but he was always going to leave at some point. The problem was that we got taken over by somebody who was not able or willing to give the club financial support. If McCrory was what he pretended to be, all this debate and criticism of the previous regime wouldn't be happening Yes, I'll defend Wray because I think he's a good bloke who made a big mistake that he'll have learned from. If he becomes chairman of another club - or even STFC again - he'll do a great job.[/p][/quote]Den,I think the whole episode was extremely regrettable. To a point Wray has similar "faults" to Power. They put trust in others that led to trouble, very regrettable trouble. Wray to a point was besotted by PDC, and during this period we as supporters enjoyed a fantastic relationship with our Chairman. He was open, charismatic, welcoming, had an ear for everybody, had infectious enthusiasm not only reserved for the club but embraced us the supporters as well. Sadly his long term friendship with Black was sullied and soured, and I think we all felt for him, a decent man, who was all too easily led by an overpowering dominant person who he took an gamble on, and gave a chance too. The payback from PDC was not deserved in the personal toil and harm it did to him, and he deserved much better from the Italian who abused their relationship to further his own ends. Big shame. Fast forward to the present day, and he again is Jed abusing Power in much the same way. I hope Wray has learned a lesson on how not to trust some people and how some are best kept at an arms length. Would I have him back even in a diluted form, the answer is YES as he is a decent guy who leaned the hard way, and tbh, we've all had some of that.I would also add, he was probably one of the best ambassadors this club has ever had, and for once we had somebody who could not only deal with the media but also wanted to be involved at every level. the wizard
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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