[lubic]

Quote

I would expect that extra season ticket holders and away fans would keep crowds up. However the extra guaranteed income would possibly exceed current gate income!

Quote

POSSIBLY? thats a risk?

I don't want to speak for other people but I think he means that the GUARANTEED extra income would border on the current gate receipts for a season. So you have that as a starting point and even if one person came every week turnover would still increase.

This post has been edited by Paul: 10 February 2006 - 10:30 PM

[Jets Fan]

 Paul, on Feb 10 2006, 10:29 PM, said:

I don't want to speak for other people but I think he means that the GUARANTEED extra income would border on the current gate receipts for a season. So you have that as a starting point and even if one person came every week turnover would still increase.

Well if it pays to go up there must be some other reason why we are playing 4-5-1. I think its just to draw. If we draw its not a loss so it keeps the fans happy!!

[lubic]

 bookerandyb, on Feb 10 2006, 11:32 PM, said:

Well if it pays to go up there must be some other reason why we are playing 4-5-1. I think its just to draw. If we draw its not a loss so it keeps the fans happy!!

Is that the proverbial penny? Maybe it's just inept tactics and not actually the board meddling?

[The Black Triangle]

 fishini, on Feb 10 2006, 10:18 PM, said:

So why the defensive negative football worse than Duncan

never be worse than jonny negative and his 8-1-1 formation

[Jets Fan]

 Paul, on Feb 10 2006, 10:32 PM, said:

Is that the proverbial penny? Maybe it's just inept tactics and not actually the board meddling?

What im saying paul is, Roy Macfarland must have enough football knowledge to know that 4-5-1 isnt working as Chesterfields best fomation and 4-4-2 is working! So why would a man who has worked wonders for the team bringing in excellent players playing 4-4-2 and getting us up there suddenly change it to a 4-5-1 formation that is proven to be rubbish? Surley he could have worked that one out at Walsall?

[lubic]

 bookerandyb, on Feb 11 2006, 12:02 AM, said:

What im saying paul is, Roy Macfarland must have enough football knowledge to know that 4-5-1 isnt working as Chesterfields best fomation and 4-4-2 is working! So why would a man who has worked wonders for the team bringing in excellent players playing 4-4-2 and getting us up there suddenly change it to a 4-5-1 formation that is proven to be rubbish? Surley he could have worked that one out at Walsall?

I don't know. I don't have the answers to that for obvious reasons. There are two different types of problem with this conspiracy theory. Firstly, it doesn't stand up to the accusation that it would be bad for the board to go up. Secondly, it relies on someone of huge integrity like Roy McFarland, despite what I might think of his recent tactics, fixing matches.

This is why I want someone to explain it to me - it hasn't been done properly yet though. I notice Fishini has gone - maybe he'll explain in the morning.

This post has been edited by Paul: 10 February 2006 - 11:08 PM

[Jets Fan]

 Paul, on Feb 10 2006, 11:06 PM, said:

I don't know. I don't have the answers to that for obvious reasons. There are two different types of problem with this conspiracy theory. It doesn't stand up to the accusation that it would be bad for the board to go up. It relies on someone of huge integrity like Roy McFarland,despite what I might think of his recent tactics, fixing matches.

This is why I want someone to explain it to me - it hasn't been done properly yet though.

In reality im not saying 'the board' dont wanna go up there is some reason for these bizzare tactics and its not to win.......i smell fish!!!

[lubic]

 bookerandyb, on Feb 11 2006, 12:08 AM, said:

In reality im not saying 'the board' dont wanna go up there is some reason for these bizzare tactics and its not to win.......i smell fish!!!

You either think the board do want to go up or you don't. Likewise, you either think McFarland is throwing matches or you don't. Are you saying there's an in-between cos I don't see that either. I'm really not being very perceptive tonight.

[Jets Fan]

 Paul, on Feb 10 2006, 11:12 PM, said:

You either think the board do want to go up or you don't. Likewise, you either think McFarland is throwing matches or you don't. Are you saying there's an in-between cos I don't see that either. I'm really not being very perceptive tonight.

Well what im saying is Macca is playing 4-5-1 to draw the games, why would he want to keep drawing? He aint throwing em exactly but hes not tying to win is he? Im not saying dirctly its the board but like i sed Macca has been in the game long enuff to know when tactics are not working, dont u agree? So there is some reason he is playin negative formations!!!

[Gary the Snail]

Is it just something football managers do?

The fans see one thing, the manager does something else?

Why is Roy McFarland obsessed with playing 4-5-1? Why play Folan up front on his own when the majority view is a Chief/Larkin duo in a 4-4-2?

Is this not the same as seasons gone by, like:

Why is Jon Duncan playing Mark Jules as a man marking full back when he's really a flying winger?

Why isn't Steve Norris playing?

What was the point of Chris Perkins?

Why isn't Dave Rushbury resigning?

Who's this Wade Falana?

Questions, but answers we may never know......

[lubic]

 bookerandyb, on Feb 11 2006, 12:16 AM, said:

Well what im saying is Macca is playing 4-5-1 to draw the games, why would he want to keep drawing? He aint throwing em exactly but hes not tying to win is he? Im not saying dirctly its the board but like i sed Macca has been in the game long enuff to know when tactics are not working, dont u agree? So there is some reason he is playin negative formations!!!

I disagree that he's trying to draw the games. Reason 1 being that the board have no reason not to want to go up. Reason 2 being that RM would never knowingly try not to win. You don't have his career by not being a winner and I'm quite sure that if he were being pressured by the board he would just quit - I doubt his personal finances are half as tight as the club's and he won't be on a great deal anyway. You've dresed it up slightly and put more thought into it than Fishini but your message hasn't really changed.

As for the tactics, I hope he's realised they don't work but he seems to have developed a certain bullishness about them - a kind of, 'I'm sure these tactics are right and I'm going to prove it come hell or high water'. I'm sure there's a perfectly faultless logic behind them - I mean, if I were the manager I'd spend ages coming up with tactics, mulling over the pros and cons, convincing myself that there were absolutely right but in the end they'd still be absolutely hopeless. I think he thinks they're right and has now got a siege mentality about them. The best laid plans an' al that.

This post has been edited by Paul: 10 February 2006 - 11:28 PM

[Jets Fan]

 Paul, on Feb 10 2006, 11:26 PM, said:

I disagree that he's trying to draw the games. Reason 1 being that the board have no reason not to want to go up. Reason 2 being that RM would never knowingly try not to win. You don't have his career by not being a winner and I'm quite sure that if he were being pressured by the board he would just quit - I doubt his personal finances are half as tight as the club's and he won't be on a great deal anyway. You've dresed it up slightly and put more thought into it than Fishini but your message hasn't really changed.

As for the tactics, I hope he's realised they don't work but he seems to have developed a certain bullishness about them - a kind of, 'I'm sure these tactics are right and I'm going to prove it come hell or high water'. I'm sure there's a perfectly faultless logic behind them - I mean, if I were the manager I'd spend ages coming up with tactics, mulling over the pros and cons, convincing myself that there were absolutely right but in the end they'd still be absolutely hopeless. I think he thinks they're right and has now got a siege mentality about them. The best laid plans an' al that.

Maybe it is a bit erm....wild, but im convinced 1 man cant make the same mistake this many times!!! Well if he is being stubborn over his tactics then he can pack his bags for me, i dont care how good he is or people think he is. Im not calling for him to be sacked and was an admirer a few games ago but if hes not willing to change his tactics then he can get lost for me. By proving it he is costing us wins..

[dalekpete]

 bookerandyb, on Feb 10 2006, 11:35 PM, said:

Well if he is being stubborn over his tactics then he can pack his bags for me, i dont care how good he is or people think he is. Im not calling for him to be sacked and was an admirer a few games ago but if hes not willing to change his tactics then he can get lost for me. By proving it he is costing us wins..

There has to be one...

...at least you speak with the authority of experience!

[benbow]

 Paul, on Feb 10 2006, 10:29 PM, said:

I don't want to speak for other people but I think he means that the GUARANTEED extra income would border on the current gate receipts for a season. So you have that as a starting point and even if one person came every week turnover would still increase.

What about the extra TV income? We should surely get some in the Championship, have we had any this season? I dont know!!!!

[lubic]

 benbow, on Feb 11 2006, 09:18 AM, said:

What about the extra TV income? We should surely get some in the Championship, have we had any this season? I dont know!!!!

Yes, that too. The evidence is piling up against the argument that the board don't want to go up and still noone has managed to explain the theory.

[lubic]

 spireiteblue, on Feb 11 2006, 10:31 AM, said:

Lets go back to Hubbards GAMBLE interview which he actually said,did he not

What do you mean? Not wanting to gamble isn't the same as not wanting to go up.

[lubic]

 spireiteblue, on Feb 11 2006, 10:45 AM, said:

Then i haven't a clue what he meant,or you for that matter.

And I don't know what you're saying either; that's why I asked. Let's just forget about it.

[sixmilliondollardan]

Not wanting to gamble on promotion by throwing cash around at players, and jeopardising the future of the club in a Rotherham style, does not mean that the board don't want promotion.

I imagine they don't want to spend funds the club hasn't got in the hope that we might get promoted. This club has had enough financial problems over the years but some fans seem hellbent on us going back there.