[Spire-Power]

Lee Ranaldo, on 07 October 2015 - 08:32 PM, said:

You're forgetting though that most of them we're penalties (which he'd won by pressurising defenders) and hat-tricks (which don't really count).
And a lot of those had been created by Johnson, who wasn't our player so we can't count those either.

In fact, he's also statistically more likely than any other person on the planet to have been hitten by a bus had he stayed a Chesterfield player rather than left.

Where do you live? Which country?

This post has been edited by Spire-Power: 08 October 2015 - 10:04 PM

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

h again, on 08 October 2015 - 01:00 PM, said:

Always ready to but you a pint if our paths cross, old adversary, but my arguments with you about your addiction to silly title-tattle are for the public domain on here, and will remain so.

Ad infinitum, it seems

And for the record, I didn't suggest our players were 'greedy mercenaries ready to jump ship for a few extra pieces of silver'. Putting words you invent into somebody else's argument is the sign of a lost cause. The players who left were talented professionals who saw their future prospects and pay over a very short career could be improved dramatically, and acted accordingly. Just as you or I would have done.
Far more powerful men than DA have had to give way to the proddings of players' agents.

Quality squirming, 'h'.

But then practice makes perfect, I guess.

And I hope you won't mind me quoting your 'putting words into mouth sign of a lost cause' comment back at you at some point. Given your record the opportunity is guaranteed to arise in the very near future.

[dim view]

sophocles, on 05 October 2015 - 09:18 PM, said:

Well at least you're very, very gradually approaching the recognition of reality; 'disappointing at the moment' is a start. I think you'll find very soon (this Saturday?), there will be another 'unexpectedly bad home attendance', and I wouldn't totally rule out a bit of 'panicky outlay on extra loanees'. Let's just see in the next week or two shall we? I actually think we might have to resort to a few extra loanees in order to avoid even more unexpectadly bad home attendances.

Has enough time elapsed?.

[h again]

MDCCCLXVI, on 09 October 2015 - 05:50 AM, said:

Quality squirming, 'h'.

But then practice makes perfect, I guess.

And I hope you won't mind me quoting your 'putting words into mouth sign of a lost cause' comment back at you at some point. Given your record the opportunity is guaranteed to arise in the very near future.

Feel free to use my words of wisdom at any time. It should lend a bit of tone to your offerings.
I don't suppose you'd like to tell me exactly where the squirming was. If you think my answer wasn't clear I'll try to put it another way, but It looks as though the 'squirming' bit is just the stock response of you and Mercury when you're stuck for an answer.
Worth a try, but becoming a bit predictable.

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

h again, on 21 October 2015 - 11:30 PM, said:

Feel free to use my words of wisdom at any time. It should lend a bit of tone to your offerings.
I don't suppose you'd like to tell me exactly where the squirming was. If you think my answer wasn't clear I'll try to put it another way, but It looks as though the 'squirming' bit is just the stock response of you and Mercury when you're stuck for an answer.
Worth a try, but becoming a bit predictable.

>Heh-heh-heh-heh-heh<

Oh, sorry 'h', it's just that since you declared yourself 'Defender of the Club' I can't help picturing Captain Mainwaring whenever you post (young 'un's check out 'Dad's Army' on youtube or this trailer https://www.youtube....h?v=Nig2SQk6jx4).

A short, dumpy, bespectacled old duffer stuffed full of pompous self-importance?

It's just so you.

But anyway, as for your prompt we both know I was referring to post #94, specifically my offer to reveal who said what and when via PM or to your face. An offer you'd clearly rather squirm out of than even admit your real name.

As I said it's an open-ended invitation, though, so we can only hope.

Toodle-pip.

[Westbars Spireite]

He's called Mick is dear old 'H'. (according to my sources on this clearly important matter)

[h again]

MDCCCLXVI, on 23 October 2015 - 07:51 AM, said:

>Heh-heh-heh-heh-heh<

Oh, sorry 'h', it's just that since you declared yourself 'Defender of the Club' I can't help picturing Captain Mainwaring whenever you post (young 'un's check out 'Dad's Army' on youtube or this trailer https://www.youtube....h?v=Nig2SQk6jx4).

A short, dumpy, bespectacled old duffer stuffed full of pompous self-importance?

It's just so you.

But anyway, as for your prompt we both know I was referring to post #94, specifically my offer to reveal who said what and when via PM or to your face. An offer you'd clearly rather squirm out of than even admit your real name.

As I said it's an open-ended invitation, though, so we can only hope.

Toodle-pip.

Ignoring for the moment the chance to buy you a pint, if you post controversial stuff publicly on here, then I'm going to dispute with you publicly on here, since it's what the Board is for, and it makes no difference to me if we meet every night for a pint - if it's on here I'll discuss it on here.
No squirming involved - perfectly straightforward opinions, no abuse, no attempt to poke fun and no inclination to be diverted by cosy chats out of harm's way. It's why we have message Boards.
You should give it a go.

[h again]

Westbars Spireite, on 23 October 2015 - 07:58 AM, said:

He's called Mick is dear old 'H'. (according to my sources on this clearly important matter)

Surely that should be 'Hick'.

[sophocles]

dim view, on 21 October 2015 - 05:09 PM, said:

Has enough time elapsed?.

Enough to prove my point, since you ask. I believe DA has referred to 8000 as the 'break - even' figure for home attendances; we achieved that (just) for the first game, and since then we have fractionally exceeded 7000 once, and have dropped to below 6000 an one occasion, with the average being about 6500. Now these figures are a big improvement on the last few years at Saltergate, but I can't imagine Mr. Allen doing a celebratory jig about them considering the sort of levels he is hoping for. The good news, of course, is that the quality of our play has shown recent signs of improvement, so if that improvement can be maintained, we might get nearer to the hoped-for attendance levels eventually.
I think it's worth pointing out the suggestion that we have recently published attendance figures based on tickets sold, rather than people actually there, which could inflate the figures compared to those used previously. Having been at matches when the stadium has appeared more sparsely populated that the attendance announced would suggest, I can well believe it, though it has not been confirmed, as far as I'm aware.

This post has been edited by sophocles: 23 October 2015 - 01:05 PM

[brianclose]

sophocles, on 23 October 2015 - 12:46 PM, said:

Enough to prove my point, since you ask. I believe DA has referred to 8000 as the 'break - even' figure for home attendances; we achieved that (just) for the first game, and since then we have fractionally exceeded 7000 once, and have dropped to below 6000 an one occasion. Now these figures are a big improvement on the last few years at Saltergate, but I can't imagine Mr. Allen doing a celebratory jig about them considering the sort of levels he is hoping for. The good news, of course, is that the quality of our play has shown recent signs of improvement, so if that improvement can be maintained, we might get nearer to the hoped-for attendance levels eventually.

Well if DA thinks 8000 is achievable then he should have either built a bigger stadium or is completely away with the fairies. Most L1 teams bring around 300-600 fans. This would mean a virtual sell out of home fans each game. Completely unachievable for us - we didn't even sell out the Play Off Semi Final.

To average 8,000 fans plus we would have to be in the Championship.

This post has been edited by brianclose: 23 October 2015 - 01:03 PM

[dim view]

sophocles, on 23 October 2015 - 12:46 PM, said:

Enough to prove my point, since you ask.

hee hee.

Not really. Your points include the inevitable devastating effect on team morale and the possibility that DA may prefer us to be relegated. By the way, welcome to my universe.

[Wooden Spoon]

sophocles, on 23 October 2015 - 12:46 PM, said:

Enough to prove my point, since you ask. I believe DA has referred to 8000 as the 'break - even' figure for home attendances; we achieved that (just) for the first game, and since then we have fractionally exceeded 7000 once, and have dropped to below 6000 an one occasion, with the average being about 6500. Now these figures are a big improvement on the last few years at Saltergate, but I can't imagine Mr. Allen doing a celebratory jig about them considering the sort of levels he is hoping for. The good news, of course, is that the quality of our play has shown recent signs of improvement, so if that improvement can be maintained, we might get nearer to the hoped-for attendance levels eventually.
I think it's worth pointing out the suggestion that we have recently published attendance figures based on tickets sold, rather than people actually there, which could inflate the figures compared to those used previously. Having been at matches when the stadium has appeared more sparsely populated that the attendance announced would suggest, I can well believe it, though it has not been confirmed, as far as I'm aware.

8000 wont see the club break even.1000 extra fans at 23 games costing £25 would realise an extra £575,000 - half of what is needed compared to last year. 7000 was the so called break even figure last season, we also had a 4th round FA cup tie and sold well over £1,000,000 worth of players - and made a tiny profit.

to break even at those sorts of running losses you would need to see almost 9000 fans in the stadium each and every home game, which is clearly nonsense.

There is something very wrong with how the club is being run.

Questions need to be asked.

[Wooden Spoon]

h again, on 23 October 2015 - 12:38 PM, said:

then I'm going to dispute with you publicly on here,

even to the point of saying nonsensical things like "the accounts are meaningless historical documents" and "the league table lies"

[sophocles]

dim view, on 23 October 2015 - 01:55 PM, said:

hee hee.

Not really. Your points include the inevitable devastating effect on team morale and the possibility that DA may prefer us to be relegated. By the way, welcome to my universe.

I see you like the time honoured tactic of trying to focus on a totally different argument once you have given up on the one we were discussing. I'll maybe come back to those another time if that's ok. Thanks for the offer, but I think I'll stay in the real world if you don't mind; you just keep your own universe all to yourself.

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

h again, on 23 October 2015 - 12:38 PM, said:

Ignoring for the moment the chance to buy you a pint, if you post controversial stuff publicly on here, then I'm going to dispute with you publicly on here, since it's what the Board is for, and it makes no difference to me if we meet every night for a pint - if it's on here I'll discuss it on here.
No squirming involved - perfectly straightforward opinions, no abuse, no attempt to poke fun and no inclination to be diverted by cosy chats out of harm's way. It's why we have message Boards.
You should give it a go.

But you're dodging the issue once more, Captain Mainwaring...errr, I mean 'h'.

Your approach is as calculated as it's cynical, constantly feeding off the fact those that quote what they've been told cannot and will not name names. So you've spent years abusing their decency by denying, deriding and generally accusing them of making stuff up. "No abuse"? "No attempt to point fun"? I can only hope that's some sort of ludicrous wind-up.

Now over those years I've made a number of attempts to settle our 'disputes' in a reasonable manner: we disagreed over the popularity of a manager? I suggested we lobby opinion in pre-match pubs only for you to back-out. I offered to introduce you to folk you'd accused of lying in an attempt to substantiate their claims? You insisted I was trying to get you beaten up - an allegation you refused to retract or apologise for. I extend olive branches? You don't even reveal your real name. And now here we are again, me doing my best to be candid (and given publication of the financial figures no one can argue that the establishment figure I spoke to wasn't being equally candid) only for you to hide behind the usual self-righteous posturing.

My opinion? You're scared, 'h'. Scared that a face-to-face might mean accepting the gossip - and that's all I've ever said it is - you're so desperate to dismiss may, just perhaps, be occasionally valid. Scared that all your taunts, jibes and pious contempt could prove baseless. And most of all you're scared - no, make that absolutely terrified - of saying those three little words you find impossible to utter: 'I...was...wrong'.

'What this messageboard's for'? I prefer 'Dalekpete's' analogy with a pub. And if we're to extend that metaphor you'd be a bloke hiding in the shadows then writing spiteful sneers on the back of the toilet doors.

[h again]

MDCCCLXVI, on 23 October 2015 - 04:57 PM, said:

But you're dodging the issue once more, Captain Mainwaring...errr, I mean 'h'.

Your approach is as calculated as it's cynical, constantly feeding off the fact those that quote what they've been told cannot and will not name names. So you've spent years abusing their decency by denying, deriding and generally accusing them of making stuff up. "No abuse"? "No attempt to point fun"? I can only hope that's some sort of ludicrous wind-up.

Now over those years I've made a number of attempts to settle our 'disputes' in a reasonable manner: we disagreed over the popularity of a manager? I suggested we lobby opinion in pre-match pubs only for you to back-out. I offered to introduce you to folk you'd accused of lying in an attempt to substantiate their claims? You insisted I was trying to get you beaten up - an allegation you refused to retract or apologise for. I extend olive branches? You don't even reveal your real name. And now here we are again, me doing my best to be candid (and given publication of the financial figures no one can argue that the establishment figure I spoke to wasn't being equally candid) only for you to hide behind the usual self-righteous posturing.

My opinion? You're scared, 'h'. Scared that a face-to-face might mean accepting the gossip - and that's all I've ever said it is - you're so desperate to dismiss may, just perhaps, be occasionally valid. Scared that all your taunts, jibes and pious contempt could prove baseless. And most of all you're scared - no, make that absolutely terrified - of saying those three little words you find impossible to utter: 'I...was...wrong'.

'What this messageboard's for'? I prefer 'Dalekpete's' analogy with a pub. And if we're to extend that metaphor you'd be a bloke hiding in the shadows then writing spiteful sneers on the back of the toilet doors.

If you can't name names the information started off as confidential. If it's confidential it shouldn't find its way into the public domain, and the people responsible for passing it on should be disciplined. If it isn't confidential you can tell us where it came from.
This is a multi-million pound, highly competitive business, not an ice-cream van. Next time your gentlemanly friends whisper something that could damage the club, pass on the info to Dave Allen instead of the message board,

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

h again, on 24 October 2015 - 08:58 PM, said:

If you can't name names the information started off as confidential. If it's confidential it shouldn't find its way into the public domain, and the people responsible for passing it on should be disciplined. If it isn't confidential you can tell us where it came from.
This is a multi-million pound, highly competitive business, not an ice-cream van. Next time your gentlemanly friends whisper something that could damage the club, pass on the info to Dave Allen instead of the message board,

All it needed was a simple PM saying 'Okay Chris, fair enough, let's discuss details with respect to those passing them on'.

All it needed was a simple response saying 'Okay Chris, fair enough, let's meet >insert convenient time and place< and discuss details with respect to those passing them on'.

However yet again - yet again - such a straightforward and friendly gesture is beyond you.

Infact you'd turn me into some sort of schoolyard snitch, back-stabbing someone decent enough to share a moment of candour with a paying punter.

I actually pity you in your bitter, spiteful and cynical little world.

[The Black Triangle]

h again, on 23 October 2015 - 12:38 PM, said:

Ignoring for the moment the chance to buy you a pint, if you post controversial stuff publicly on here, then I'm going to dispute with you publicly on here, since it's what the Board is for, and it makes no difference to me if we meet every night for a pint - if it's on here I'll discuss it on here.
No squirming involved - perfectly straightforward opinions, no abuse, no attempt to poke fun and no inclination to be diverted by cosy chats out of harm's way. It's why we have message Boards.
You should give it a go.

why are you afraid of meeting him in public?