[spireitetoo]

necronomicon ex mortis, on 28 October 2012 - 04:48 AM, said:

Rather have Frank Barlow as a coach - now that fella knows his stuff

right now i'd take deirdre barlow, as shinner must be useless.

[azul]

jonnythespireite, on 28 October 2012 - 09:25 AM, said:

Idiot.

I am afraid that is a case of pot calling kettle

At least I know my history

That team he assembled cost us an arm and a leg and didn't get promotion. In the end we had sell everything off to survive and didn't recover from his reign for 15 years

Now if you haven't anything more constructive to say than "idiot" begone with you!!

This post has been edited by azul: 28 October 2012 - 10:11 AM

[newbold ken]

azul, on 28 October 2012 - 10:06 AM, said:

I am afraid that is a case of pot calling kettle

At least I know my history

That team he assembled cost us an arm and a leg and didn't get promotion. In the end we had sell everything off to survive and didn't recover from his reign for 15 years

Now if you haven't anything more constructive to say than "idiot" begone with you!!

15 years? Won div4 84/5. Went to Wembley 1990 and 1995. Also fantastic to watch Two or three seasons

[RPL42YEARS]

CLYDE BEST, on 27 October 2012 - 07:44 PM, said:

BRING ARTHUR COX OUT OF RETIREMENT TO OVERSEE THE TRAINING

Did you find fame playing along side Clint Eastwood by any chance?

[Frank Thacker]

whittman, on 27 October 2012 - 10:10 PM, said:

Ian Gaunt was the chairman at the time.As I can remember for quite a few years before the board was regarded as a closed shop.

Try "For forty years before!"

Quote

...IMO Arthur Cox spent money we did not have in a failed attempt to join what is now the Championship. He then left to join Newcastle leaving Frank Barlow to try and pick up the pieces. Frank told me,in the supporters eyes, 'If we go up it will be Arthurs team if we dont it will be mine.' Unfortunately for him and the club Frank never spoke a truer word.

Not an unreasonable opinion. The parts in bold are, for me, the ones we should remember in any assessment of Arthur's time here., alongside whatever good football was played. I like Barlow's deliciously fatalistic approach to the apportionment on credit and blame.

[azul]

fiddler2003, on 28 October 2012 - 06:52 PM, said:

He's probably half your size and half your age but WHY don't you say that to his face?

But then , he'd probably treat a remark like that with the comtempt that it deserves.

Really ,some of the stuff that goes on this site !!

That would make me 12 foot high and 150 years old

I agree

This post has been edited by azul: 28 October 2012 - 09:18 PM

[Andy Spireite]

azul, on 28 October 2012 - 09:17 PM, said:

That would make me 12 foot high and 150 years old

I agree

That did make me chuckle!

[brew_army]

Dema Reborn, on 27 October 2012 - 08:51 PM, said:

Kop used to chant that regular it was quite funny actually......

Haha there used to be half the kop choir chanting cox out with the other half replying cox in

This post has been edited by brew_army: 28 October 2012 - 10:36 PM

[jonnythespireite]

azul, on 28 October 2012 - 10:06 AM, said:

I am afraid that is a case of pot calling kettle

At least I know my history

That team he assembled cost us an arm and a leg and didn't get promotion. In the end we had sell everything off to survive and didn't recover from his reign for 15 years

Now if you haven't anything more constructive to say than "idiot" begone with you!!

You said cox bankrupted the club. He didn't though did he. He spent money made available to him by a board of directors. I know my history too. I was there as they say. So if you know it then don't try and rewrite it.

[jamie_bolsover]

Arthur's teams were undoubtedly the best I ever saw at town.

However, the teams were ultimately a failure in respect of reaching their goal of promotion to 'level 2' the club took a huge gamble allowing Arthur to spend money we didn't have in an attempt to reach the promised land and ultimately it was a failure, a very costly failure.

Ernie Moss past his best???? That's why he went on for another seven or eight years more netting regularly and winning several promotions.

[Frank Thacker]

jonnythespireite, on 29 October 2012 - 07:50 AM, said:

You said cox bankrupted the club. He didn't though did he. He spent money made available to him by a board of directors. I know my history too. I was there as they say. So if you know it then don't try and rewrite it.

The club was spending money it did not have, and it had no prospect of ever taking enough to pay the debts it was running up. From the moment we signed Wilson, for instance, we began defaulting on the payments to Bury, with the effect that interest charges became unsustainable. In the end the club was reportedly hours or days from oblivion, before Mike Watterson's money came in to rescue it. I am fortunate enough to have seen minute books for the period and they are not a pretty sight. I wasn't lucky enough to see the better games of football played under Cox (and given the occasional dalliances with the relegation zone, there must have been some poor ones, too) but I can't think that any "Colchester 3-0" is worth the carnage that swept through the place in the spring of 1983.

[jonnythespireite]

Stuart Basson, on 29 October 2012 - 08:12 AM, said:

The club was spending money it did not have, and it had no prospect of ever taking enough to pay the debts it was running up. From the moment we signed Wilson, for instance, we began defaulting on the payments to Bury, with the effect that interest charges became unsustainable. In the end the club was reportedly hours or days from oblivion, before Mike Watterson's money came in to rescue it. I am fortunate enough to have seen minute books for the period and they are not a pretty sight. I wasn't lucky enough to see the better games of football played under Cox (and given the occasional dalliances with the relegation zone, there must have been some poor ones, too) but I can't think that any "Colchester 3-0" is worth the carnage that swept through the place in the spring of 1983.

Not sure what your point is really Stuart? I agree with and acknowledge all you say but my point is that Cox personally didn't bankrupt the club as asserted by a previous poster.

[azul]

jonnythespireite, on 29 October 2012 - 08:22 AM, said:

Not sure what your point is really Stuart? I agree with and acknowledge all you say but my point is that Cox personally didn't bankrupt the club as asserted by a previous poster.

If he spent money we didn't have and got us promoted things would have been ok (maybe?), he failed big time, so things were not ok and therefore it was his fault.

Note, I didn't use the word bankrupt because technically we didn't go bankrupt and some silly pedantic person would pick up on that

He then left leaving someone else holding the baby

This post has been edited by azul: 29 October 2012 - 08:49 AM

[jonnythespireite]

azul, on 29 October 2012 - 08:31 AM, said:

History not your strong point?

If he spent money we didn't have and got us promoted things would have been ok (maybe?), he failed big time, so things were not and therefore it was his fault.

Note, I didn't use the word bankrupt because technically we didn't go bankrupt and some silly person would pick up on that

He then left leaving someone else holding the baby

So if a chairman comes to you and says here's 250k for phil bonnyman I assume you ask to see proof of where its coming from would you??

I would say any fault would be that of the board who sanctioned a budget they couldn't actually provide. Wouldn't you?

He left to take the Newcastle job. Again, what would you do?

[Dave69-70]

Westbars Spireite, on 27 October 2012 - 08:52 PM, said:

Bring back Herbert Munday.

And Ruby Tuesday.

[azul]

jonnythespireite, on 29 October 2012 - 08:52 AM, said:

So if a chairman comes to you and says here's 250k for phil bonnyman I assume you ask to see proof of where its coming from would you??

I would say any fault would be that of the board who sanctioned a budget they couldn't actually provide. Wouldn't you?

He left to take the Newcastle job. Again, what would you do?

His reign was a disaster, history shows he didn't spend the money wisely and his failure to gain promotion sent us into a downward spiral that we did come out until the mid 90's

He then scuttled off before the club imploded

He was a massive failure and yet he his held up by some as our best ever manager.

I agree do agree however, the board who sanctioned the overspend hold the ultimate blame because they put their faith in the wrong manager

[jonnythespireite]

azul, on 29 October 2012 - 09:22 AM, said:

His reign was a disaster, history shows he didn't spend the money wisely and his failure to gain promotion sent us into a downward spiral that we did come out until the mid 90's

He then scuttled off before the club imploded

He was a massive failure and yet he his held up by some as our best ever manager.

I agree do agree however, the board who sanctioned the overspend hold the ultimate blame because they put their faith in the wrong manager

I can only assume that back in the day Arthur ran over your cat.......

[Frank Thacker]

jonnythespireite, on 29 October 2012 - 08:52 AM, said:

Not sure what your point is really Stuart?

Cox was a powerful personality and perhaps the chairman was not. As I see it there is joint responsibility; Cox (who attended board meetings) whould have been aware of our financial shortcomings and should have found a way of managing without spending money we didn't have, and Gaunt shouldn't have sanctioned the spending. Of the two, I consider Cox a bit more to blame than Gaunt, since he should have been realistic enough to moderate his demands before putting the chairman in the position of having to say yes or no.