[Greenie78]

‘Big win’ - reaction from win against Barnet:
https://www.derbyshi...eaction-4535732

[Greenie78]

Player ratings v Barnet:
https://www.derbyshi...-barnet-4535858

[Greenie78]

Chesterfield’s ‘quality’ was ‘difference’ says Barnet boss:
https://www.derbyshi...brennan-4535911

[clarevoyant.]

 clarevoyant., on 26 February 2024 - 01:59 PM, said:

Could you ask your colleagues on your sister paper the oldham Times or whatever its called the following. Will there be and if so why would oldham leave 1500ish tickets unavailable on the away end?

Would it be fair to say you (DT) don't have a sister paper in the Oldham area or you are incommunicado.

[Westbars Spireite]

 clarevoyant., on 28 February 2024 - 11:58 AM, said:

Would it be fair to say you (DT) don't have a sister paper in the Oldham area or you are incommunicado.

There is an Oldham Times but it is not in the same group at the DT.

[spireitedave]

The Oldham Paper is the excellent
Oldham Chronicle.

[clarevoyant.]

 Westbars Spireite, on 28 February 2024 - 12:06 PM, said:

There is an Oldham Times but it is not in the same group at the DT.

The point being we regularly get updates on opposition form etc garnered with interacting journos. It would be appropriate to get an oldham perspective as to why there are unavailable tickets when clubs are crying out for all the revenue they can get. Very strange or hush hush?

[Westbars Spireite]

It’s up to Oldham Athletic. If they want to turn away revenue, it’s up to them.

Nothing any journalist says will make any difference.

[clarevoyant.]

 Westbars Spireite, on 28 February 2024 - 01:16 PM, said:

It’s up to Oldham Athletic. If they want to turn away revenue, it’s up to them.

Nothing any journalist says will make any difference.

Obviously, I'm trying to understand the reasoning, there must be some incentive for them to chuck away the revenue that 1.5 to 2k would generate and thought a local journo may have an idea and if not would wonder why and ask relevent questions. Doesn't it appear a little strange to your, what is normally an inquisitive mind.

[clarevoyant.]

 Westbars Spireite, on 28 February 2024 - 12:06 PM, said:

There is an Oldham Times but it is not in the same group at the DT.

Apologies, I may be accidentally responsible for your undeserved red thingy.

[Westbars Spireite]

 clarevoyant., on 28 February 2024 - 01:32 PM, said:

Obviously, I'm trying to understand the reasoning, there must be some incentive for them to chuck away the revenue that 1.5 to 2k would generate and thought a local journo may have an idea and if not would wonder why and ask relevent questions. Doesn't it appear a little strange to your, what is normally an inquisitive mind.

To me it’s clear they are less interested in the revenue than limiting the perceived risk of a full away end (would their next fine be bigger?) and in theory limited the advantage to the opposition.

[clarevoyant.]

 Westbars Spireite, on 28 February 2024 - 05:48 PM, said:

To me it’s clear they are less interested in the revenue than limiting the perceived risk of a full away end (would their next fine be bigger?) and in theory limited the advantage to the opposition.

Yep. Pretty much as said in posts 55 and 153 on the Oldham Thread. So to summarise we are suffering because of the antics of their thugs. But nowt will be officially stated. Oh well!

[Westbars Spireite]

 clarevoyant., on 28 February 2024 - 06:10 PM, said:

Yep. Pretty much as said in posts 55 and 153 on the Oldham Thread. So to summarise we are suffering because of the antics of their thugs. But nowt will be officially stated. Oh well!

Not really. Why would they want to double the perceived risk of an away pitch invasion given what could happen as result? I'm not sure what sort of statement you're expecting; their decision (at this stage) is all that's needed.

This post has been edited by Westbars Spireite: 28 February 2024 - 11:02 PM

[clarevoyant.]

 Westbars Spireite, on 28 February 2024 - 11:02 PM, said:

Not really. Why would they want to double the perceived risk of an away pitch invasion given what could happen as result? I'm not sure what sort of statement you're expecting; their decision (at this stage) is all that's needed.

"Given what could happen as a result" being the key words. Are you concluding the same as me that they may be under some kind of 'suspended sentence ' due to previous transgressionls on their part whereby any other occurrences sees them severely penalised? All speculation of course, but when folk see a half empty away terrace on tv with the southends of this word thinking what Bunkum support we have or all the town fans sat at home wishing they were there it will be small conciliation knowing they are being punished for Oldhams previous transgressions.

Transgressions being plural, would the 2nd occurrence have happened if the NL had acted in a professional manner after the job at our place instead of brushing it under the carpet. If they had, maybe the rochdale incidents may not have occured and we would not be were we are now with many Spireites missing out.

It's all an 'auntie, knackers and uncle' scenario, clarification would be nice though and would certainly get more 'click bait' in the DT than an announcement of some club in the relregation fight sacking their manager.

This post has been edited by clarevoyant.: 29 February 2024 - 08:39 AM

[JonB]

Not sure about suspended sentence but the punishment released by the FA said fine and warning so its not unreasonable to suggest they would be punished further were it to happen again.

Interestingly they've made an appearance on the January FA charges as well but this time its their players not behaving in the game v Woking, not sure what went off as Woking have the same charge against them :-

Oldham Athletic FC vs Woking FC
National League
27 January 2024
Breach of FA Rule E20.1 - It is alleged that in or around the 47th minute of the fixture, Oldham Athletic FC failed to ensure that its players do not behave in a way which is improper.
The Club have until 6:00pm on 2 February 2024 to provide a response.

[danblue]

A possitve spin on it would be the less fans we take, the lower the possibility of a mass pitch invasion by 'excitable' fans and the league docking us 30 points and blowing the championship!

[Westbars Spireite]

 clarevoyant., on 29 February 2024 - 08:36 AM, said:

"Given what could happen as a result" being the key words. Are you concluding the same as me that they may be under some kind of 'suspended sentence ' due to previous transgressionls on their part whereby any other occurrences sees them severely penalised? All speculation of course, but when folk see a half empty away terrace on tv with the southends of this word thinking what Bunkum support we have or all the town fans sat at home wishing they were there it will be small conciliation knowing they are being punished for Oldhams previous transgressions.

Transgressions being plural, would the 2nd occurrence have happened if the NL had acted in a professional manner after the job at our place instead of brushing it under the carpet. If they had, maybe the rochdale incidents may not have occured and we would not be were we are now with many Spireites missing out.

It's all an 'auntie, knackers and uncle' scenario, clarification would be nice though and would certainly get more 'click bait' in the DT than an announcement of some club in the relregation fight sacking their manager.

They were punished for what happened at our place and you would expect them to be more severely punished if there was crowd trouble at BP that their fans were involved in. The fewer of our fans in the ground, the less chance there is of that.

[clarevoyant.]

 JonB, on 29 February 2024 - 08:50 AM, said:

Not sure about suspended sentence but the punishment released by the FA said fine and warning so its not unreasonable to suggest they would be punished further were it to happen again.

Interestingly they've made an appearance on the January FA charges as well but this time its their players not behaving in the game v Woking, not sure what went off as Woking have the same charge against them :-

Oldham Athletic FC vs Woking FC
National League
27 January 2024
Breach of FA Rule E20.1 - It is alleged that in or around the 47th minute of the fixture, Oldham Athletic FC failed to ensure that its players do not behave in a way which is improper.
The Club have until 6:00pm on 2 February 2024 to provide a response.

Wasn't sure of what terminology to use so put 'kind of suspended sentence'. However it doesn't alter that things point to them crapping themselves over further transgressions costing them dearly. In a roundabout way its embarrassing for them with them perceiving themselves as a big club but being unable to police a full capacity away end in none league football.

[Greenie78]

Latest on Colclough, Freckleton, King and Berry ahead of Dorking Wanderers:
https://www.derbyshi...nderers-4538921

[Greenie78]

Asked about possibility of bringing back Tyrer for next season:
https://www.derbyshi...r-again-4538999

This post has been edited by Greenie78: 01 March 2024 - 11:03 AM