[lubic]

Back up to the top.

[malcolmr13]

fishini, on Feb 10 2006, 10:11 PM, said:

but this board or most of it is from the past is it not? Match fixing never said that I said we don't want promotion and losing matches it the way to achieve it

May I reply to the oft-repeated assertion you make that the board do not want promotion/ or lack the nerve to invest, etc. I realise at last that I cannot convince you otherwise. I have hovered over the keyboard a few times ! I am left wondering why you feel so personally maligned by experiences down the years at CFC.
I am genuinely sorry that you feel these events so keenly.

[fishini]

malcolmr13, on Feb 11 2006, 06:56 PM, said:

May I reply to the oft-repeated assertion you make that the board do not want promotion/ or lack the nerve to invest, etc. I realise at last that I cannot convince you otherwise. I have hovered over the keyboard a few times ! I am left wondering why you feel so personally maligned by experiences down the years at CFC.
I am genuinely sorry that you feel these events so keenly.

27 years a season ticket holder and contrary to what most people on this board say and feel about me I love this club with a passion but I am genuinely fed up with playing in the bottom 2 divisions and seeing cr*p teams like Rotherham having a taste of the higher leagues along with Mansfield etc. I am not advocating bankrupting the Club to achieve these aims ie Rotherham, but this is our best chance for years and we seem to be blowing it by Roy's stupid ideas and tactics. If he had continued with the previous formation we would almost certainly be in the top three now, it is plain to see that the present tactics do not work and what worries me being the sceptic that I am is why the CFC board is not demanding from Roy that we play the kind of football we once did if they genuinely want promotion which makes me think that they are quite happy with the situation as it is. I am not and I will always voice my beliefs and concerns without any regard for what others may think. If this in other peoples eye's makes me less of a supporter then so be it, I will have to live with it.

[lubic]

fishini, on Feb 11 2006, 08:34 PM, said:

27 years a season ticket holder and contrary to what most people on this board say and feel about me I love this club with a passion but I am genuinely fed up with playing in the bottom 2 divisions and seeing cr*p teams like Rotherham having a taste of the higher leagues along with Mansfield etc. I am not advocating bankrupting the Club to achieve these aims ie Rotherham, but this is our best chance for years and we seem to be blowing it by Roy's stupid ideas and tactics. If he had continued with the previous formation we would almost certainly be in the top three now, it is plain to see that the present tactics do not work and what worries me being the sceptic that I am is why the CFC board is not demanding from Roy that we play the kind of football we once did if they genuinely want promotion which makes me think that they are quite happy with the situation as it is. I am not and I will always voice my beliefs and concerns without any regard for what others may think. If this in other peoples eye's makes me less of a supporter then so be it, I will have to live with it.

You've changed your tune. First you said that the board was telling RM to play 4-5-1. Now you're saying that they're not telling him to go back to 4-4-2. I should flippin' well hope they're not! Whatever the ineptness of the current tactics, a club may as well give up when the chairman picks the team.

You still haven't explained why the board wouldn't want to go up. Leave the bluster about how long you've been a fan and about the past, why would this board not want to go up?

[fishini]

Paul, on Feb 11 2006, 07:48 PM, said:

You've changed your tune. First you said that the board was telling RM to play 4-5-1. Now you're saying that they're not telling him to go back to 4-4-2. I should flippin' well hope they're not! Whatever the ineptness of the current tactics, a club may as well give up when the chairman picks the team.

You still haven't explained why the board wouldn't want to go up. Leave the bluster about how long you've been a fan and about the past, why would this board not want to go up?

Read what I wrote and understand if it's not too difficult

If he had continued with the previous formation we would almost certainly be in the top three now, it is plain to see that the present tactics do not work and what worries me being the sceptic that I am is why the CFC board is not demanding from Roy that we play the kind of football we once did if they genuinely want promotion which makes me think that they are quite happy with the situation as it is. I am not and I will always voice my beliefs and concerns without any regard for what others may think. If this in other peoples eye's makes me less of a supporter then so be it, I will have to live with it.

I will explain my thoughts to you if this Board was serious about promotion why are they allowing Roy to continue with these negative, boring, defencive tactics that at their best may earn us a point, 8 draws on trot and still he continued, if you were on the Board and wanted promotion would you allow your Manager to continue to play in a fashion that is almost certain to prevent this aim being fulfilled? I personally would not, that is why IMO this board does not deep down want promotion contrary to what they say, and whats more I still believe the New Ground is dead, but hope to be proved wrong

[lubic]

fishini, on Feb 11 2006, 09:07 PM, said:

Read what I wrote and understand if it's not too difficult

If he had continued with the previous formation we would almost certainly be in the top three now, it is plain to see that the present tactics do not work and what worries me being the sceptic that I am is why the CFC board is not demanding from Roy that we play the kind of football we once did if they genuinely want promotion which makes me think that they are quite happy with the situation as it is. I am not and I will always voice my beliefs and concerns without any regard for what others may think. If this in other peoples eye's makes me less of a supporter then so be it, I will have to live with it.

I will explain my thoughts to you if this Board was serious about promotion why are they allowing Roy to continue with these negative, boring, defencive tactics that at their best may earn us a point, 8 draws on trot and still he continued, if you were on the Board and wanted promotion would you allow your Manager to continue to play in a fashion that is almost certain to prevent this aim being fulfilled? I personally would not, that is why IMO this board does not deep down want promotion contrary to what they say, and whats more I still believe the New Ground is dead, but hope to be proved wrong

I did read it and you're right - it is simplistic claptrap. I started this thread to ask people to explain why the board doesn't want promotion. You've identified what you see as the symptoms - the board apparently letting RM carry on a losing formation (rubbish, but still) - but you still haven't explained why you think the board doesn't want promotion. You're just second-guessing that they don't.

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

[fishini]

Paul, on Feb 11 2006, 08:11 PM, said:

I did read it and you're right - it is simplistic claptrap. I started this thread to ask people to explain why the board doesn't want promotion. You've identified what you see as the symptoms - the board apparently letting RM carry on a losing formation (rubbish, but still) - but you still haven't explained why you think the board doesn't want promotion. You're just second-guessing that they don't.

Costs and Hubbards retoric a short while ago did not exactly fill me with hope, he is part of the same problem as we have had years down the line seeing as he has been on the Board for years nothing has changed we have blown our chances before and will do this year, but hey people like you are happy just to finish 5th from bottom whatever makes you tick.

I now ask you if you think the Board really wants this promotion why are we still playing the type of football that has brought us 4 wins in 19 games?

[lubic]

fishini, on Feb 11 2006, 09:19 PM, said:

I now ask you if you think the Board really wants this promotion why are we still playing the type of football that has brought us 4 wins in 19 games?

That's the same alleged symptom that you keep coming up with among your bluster! Being as you asked I'll answer as best I can - because the board don't pick the team!

Now, don't identify effects and symptoms of the board not wanting to go up; tell me why, in your opinion, they don't want to go up. Because for me this defies logic. Don't say 'oh it must be the case because they've won four times in nineteen'; tell me what possible reason there could be (business or otherwise) for them not wanting to go up. In three pages of this thread there have been evasions of the questions mixed in with accusations of match fixing and bluster about what some people are. How about we drop the George Galloway act and actually answer the question?

[Wooden Spoon]

Paul, on Feb 11 2006, 08:29 PM, said:

. How about we drop the George Galloway act and actually answer the question?

you wont get an answer paul.

seems that with such a small squad, players need to be rested. and, unfortunatly, the replacement forward (CB) isnt up to playing on his own. (IMO)

this translates(in some minds) to a deliberate act of sabotage, as the board (allegedely) dont want to negociate championship wages, win bonuses, top 6 bonus, promotion bonus etc.

[Frank Thacker]

fishini, on Feb 11 2006, 08:19 PM, said:

he has been on the Board for years nothing has changed

For many of those years Barrie was on the board as straight man to Norton. Interestingly, the only time before this that BH was actually in charge in the boardroom was around the 1984-5 season, when the players and management put a huge spanner in Hubbard's plans to avoid promotion by winning the Division Four championship.

Quote

I now ask you if you think the Board really wants this promotion why are we still playing the type of football that has brought us 4 wins in 19 games?

You don't keep a dog and bark yourself. Perhaps Hubbard feels that his Manager knows more about football management than he does - a point of view apparently beyond several on this message board. On the day that Roy McFarland begins to hector Barrie Hubbard about running a print company in Dronfield, I would expect Hubbard to have something to say about it.

[dedwardp]

This has been said at Colchester for years, we couldn't afford to gain promotion. This season, however, the chairman is after promotion.

[Town_Fan]

dalekpete, on Feb 10 2006, 10:14 PM, said:

. If we go up, and I am committed to this happening, we will have a three year dispensation from ground changes-

Sadly you are not in a position to affect change though are you?

[h again]

Paul, on Feb 11 2006, 08:29 PM, said:

That's the same alleged symptom that you keep coming up with among your bluster! Being as you asked I'll answer as best I can - because the board don't pick the team!

Now, don't identify effects and symptoms of the board not wanting to go up; tell me why, in your opinion, they don't want to go up. Because for me this defies logic. Don't say 'oh it must be the case because they've won four times in nineteen'; tell me what possible reason there could be (business or otherwise) for them not wanting to go up. In three pages of this thread there have been evasions of the questions mixed in with accusations of match fixing and bluster about what some people are. How about we drop the George Galloway act and actually answer the question?

I hope you aren't holding your breath, Paul. The silvery silence that always descends when fishi has to give reasons is with us once again.

[lubic]

Sorry to do this, but I'm pushing all the threads I can find from the last few days where the conspiracy is mentioned but not fully explained. I'm doing it in the hope that the people who believe it will explain it. If not, hopefully it will make them look silly.

[h again]

Paul, on Feb 16 2006, 09:53 PM, said:

Sorry to do this, but I'm pushing all the threads I can find from the last few days where the conspiracy is mentioned but not fully explained. I'm doing it in the hope that the people who believe it will explain it. If not, hopefully it will make them look silly.

More power to your elbow, but don't expect many answers. The conspiracy theory just doesn't stand up to any kind of sensible analysis. It's just a sop for the frustration some juveniles feel when they don't get their own way, i.e their team loses. It's a star prize for people who'd rather moan than think, hence the fishinis of this world.

[lubic]

h again, on Feb 17 2006, 01:57 AM, said:

More power to your elbow, but don't expect many answers. The conspiracy theory just doesn't stand up to any kind of sensible analysis. It's just a sop for the frustration some juveniles feel when they don't get their own way, i.e their team loses. It's a star prize for people who'd rather moan than think, hence the fishinis of this world.

Well you were right - the silence is deafening. Isn't there a legal situation where not answering is considered an act of guilt? I'm leaving this topic now until it raises its ugly head again.

[sophocles]

h again, on Feb 17 2006, 12:57 AM, said:

More power to your elbow, but don't expect many answers. The conspiracy theory just doesn't stand up to any kind of sensible analysis. It's just a sop for the frustration some juveniles feel when they don't get their own way, i.e their team loses. It's a star prize for people who'd rather moan than think, hence the fishinis of this world.

Absolutely correct H - it's simply that attitude that if something doesn't work out the way you want, then it HAS to be somebody else's fault. You are totally correct to identify it as an extremely immature attitude, though I think you were unduly kind to use the word 'juvenile', I'd say 'infantile' was more accurate psychologically. As you pointed out to paul, he will get no credible 'answer' however long he waits, for the simple reason that, not only is there no answer, but there isn't even a sensible question.