This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - TonyM
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 37
31
« on: September 10, 2023, 01:44:46 PM »
...All this players back from international duty, yes it’s top class opposition but not exactly a top class team we are sending a player off to represent, get real, Gibraltar would struggle against most national league teams.
Think we have to acknowledge that losing both full backs for three games is going disrupt the balance of a team that didn't have much to begin with. Personally I think if Issacson is fit then he deserves to keep his place over what I have seen of Clifford but Ronan being missing has taken away a genuine starter and also limited MHs midfield options with Smith filling in at wing back.
32
« on: September 10, 2023, 08:42:49 AM »
Whilst we were poor yesterday, the scoreline didn't really reflect the game - individual errors and a great free kick for their goals, that said we did look really fragile and we still don't have a clear identity even for a plan A, let alone much idea of how to change things when they aren't going as hoped.
Recruitment looks a mixed bag with Oke and Cybukski looking the pick and others still to repay the managers faith in bringing them in - Spence showed glimpses yesterday and likewise with Smith on Tuesday evening when playing out of position but are they really what we needed in the middle of the park? The real problem seems to be those who were retained from last season haven't been firing and maybe MH needs to reflect on who he can trust and then maybe finding a system that gets the most out of those players rather than just picking what are perceived to be the 'best' players and hoping they will produce something
Next weekend is a bit of a free hit for me looking at the relative form / league positions but sure SC will want a cup run so maybe more pressure on MH, hopefully with players back from international duty / injury this will allow him to make some changes
33
« on: September 10, 2023, 08:16:59 AM »
I think the big issue for next Saturday will be the gate, lots more season ticket holders this season having to make a decision on whether to pay to watch a team that were already underdogs before yesterdays performance.
34
« on: September 08, 2023, 10:02:22 PM »
We were short of midfield options in the last two games with Smith being drafted into right back so good to see the club add some short term cover, hopefully the arrangement will benefit both Kai and Lynn
35
« on: September 06, 2023, 03:40:13 PM »
From Brackley thread...
Read SC’s programme notes this morning. Oh my oh my. Looks like he’s very concerned about pay back that loan. Shame he put the Club in that situation with his failed attempt at staying in the NL. What happened to the his brainwave of ring fencing £1 from every admission to pay back that loan ? As for the money the Club is haemorrhaging. With the figures he’s quoting why do we have a full time playing staff and paying out for such things as overnight stays. It seems everything is everyone’s fault where Cleeve is concerned. Maybe the truth lies closer to home.
* in 'talks' with DCMS re loan (think it was £400k+ from memory) to convert to shares with these then being donated to the fans, really can't see this as viable and smacks of clutching at straws
And only now he wants fan involvement!!! 
I made a point of reading SC's notes last night but hadn't got round to those in the Alfreton programme which I have now got read and where he explains his thinking on this debt equity swap a bit more. He links it back to the Crouch report with a misunderstanding / misrepresentation of what that says about clubs fan bases needing to be consulted on certain issues (club colours, badges etc) - this consultation does not need fans to own shares.
I think this comes back to a fundamental issue for SC, he either can't, or doesn't want to, understand the concept of stakeholders, only shareholders. Just as a point of note, in neither programme does he talk about 'fan involvement', only for a "small holding ... to be donated to a club fan group"
If fans owned shares, the Directors are working for them. Shareholders need to be reported to by the Directors.
Therefore that's "fan involvement".
Majority shareholders would still be in control, but shareholders have the right to know about important matters, such as the finances of the Club.
Reporting to others? I really can't see this appealing to the Chairman unless as you say, it's clutching at straws.
I think 'reporting' can be a pretty broad brush, so could be anything from regular monthly meetings to a very bland annual or bi-annual summary and that is assuming the shares are not a different class of share with corresponding reduced rights. The other factor to consider is what a 'club fan group' would consist of and who might be on the leadership of that group ;)
36
« on: September 06, 2023, 03:17:27 PM »
From Brackley thread...
Read SC’s programme notes this morning. Oh my oh my. Looks like he’s very concerned about pay back that loan. Shame he put the Club in that situation with his failed attempt at staying in the NL. What happened to the his brainwave of ring fencing £1 from every admission to pay back that loan ? As for the money the Club is haemorrhaging. With the figures he’s quoting why do we have a full time playing staff and paying out for such things as overnight stays. It seems everything is everyone’s fault where Cleeve is concerned. Maybe the truth lies closer to home.
* in 'talks' with DCMS re loan (think it was £400k+ from memory) to convert to shares with these then being donated to the fans, really can't see this as viable and smacks of clutching at straws
And only now he wants fan involvement!!! 
I made a point of reading SC's notes last night but hadn't got round to those in the Alfreton programme which I have now got read and where he explains his thinking on this debt equity swap a bit more. He links it back to the Crouch report with a misunderstanding / misrepresentation of what that says about clubs fan bases needing to be consulted on certain issues (club colours, badges etc) - this consultation does not need fans to own shares. I think this comes back to a fundamental issue for SC, he either can't, or doesn't want to, understand the concept of stakeholders, only shareholders. Just as a point of note, in neither programme does he talk about 'fan involvement', only for a "small holding ... to be donated to a club fan group"
37
« on: September 06, 2023, 09:45:00 AM »
From Brackley thread... Read SC’s programme notes this morning. Oh my oh my. Looks like he’s very concerned about pay back that loan. Shame he put the Club in that situation with his failed attempt at staying in the NL. What happened to the his brainwave of ring fencing £1 from every admission to pay back that loan ? As for the money the Club is haemorrhaging. With the figures he’s quoting why do we have a full time playing staff and paying out for such things as overnight stays. It seems everything is everyone’s fault where Cleeve is concerned. Maybe the truth lies closer to home.
Think this probably needs a thread of it's own. For those that didn't get a programme, essentially SC raised a number of issues (seems he took offence to some fan's comments made to him at an away game) * in 'talks' with DCMS re loan (think it was £400k+ from memory) to convert to shares with these then being donated to the fans, really can't see this as viable and smacks of clutching at straws * wants terms of the loan to be renegotiated as we have been relegated so lost £80k in central funding, surely this would have been matched by reduction in expenditure / player wages? * first payment is 2025 - £58840.54 which is interest, whilst I appreciate this is getting closer it is still a good way off. If it kept him awake at night then surely should have paid some back after Stevenage game to reduce the capital? Further payments of £20k twice yearly after that starting in 2026. Good to see some figures at last as to what any potential investor would be taking on * direct quote "I am upset that these next two matches have not been sponsored and the club really needs the town behind it, as otherwise it simply cannot compete at this level". For the first part of the sentence, SC has no one to be upset with than himself, he fired Rishi half way through last year and irrespective of whether he was doing a good job or not he was, at least, getting out there and promoting the club to the business community. As SC must surely realise by now, there is not a long queue of potential sponsors lining up to sponsor games / players and these relationships must be worked on over months, seasons even and it is not just a question of putting a post on Twitter the week before a game and wait for the offers to come rolling in. As for the second part, the club are probably at, or above, their 'natural' level but some (SC included) seem to think that things 'should' be different - the only way this will be true is if someone makes it different, merely wishing it to be the case will only end in disappointment * there is lots of other stuff about how the budget hasn't been cut by that much and costs are horrendous when we are away but you would have thought by now SC would understand the cashflows of a football operation? Also says that last home game (Alfreton att 948) left a £4500 shortfall, I do wonder if there are more season ticket holders this season and SC hasn't done his sums All in all not the most positive of Chairman's messages, guess we wait and see what he puts in the column (assuming he doesn't get AI to write it this Saturday) after 753 turned up on a mild September evening when the league leaders were in town.
38
« on: September 06, 2023, 08:01:01 AM »
Looking at the game tonight. 2-0 up pulled back to 2-2. 2 points dropped there or 1 gained ? Took a point before the game without a doubt. 5 mins into the 2nd half you would have maybe expected/hope for all 3.
Absolutely a point gained imo, MH going into the game without his starting full backs and injuries elsewhere meant players starting out of position and really limited substitute options, particularly in midfield with Smith playing as emergency right back. As it turned out a good performance in terms of effort and created chances to maybe win the game but not sure anyone who was at the Walks could really say that Brackley didn't deserve a share of the points however disappointing an injury time equaliser is to concede. Big plus points for me were some of the new lads - Oke continues to impress, Fatadjo was busy and provided positive movement from midfield and Isaacson looked like he had been playing in the side all season and won't come up against many wingers of that standard this season. One other player to mention individually has to be Jones who seems to be playing better than before his injury last season. Finally another positive post about the ref - good control of the game and got most 'right' from where I stood, that is two really good refs in the three home games I have been to, maybe SC should be Xing that rather than marginal offsides or writing programme notes that highlight the (continued) lack of off-field management at the club
39
« on: August 15, 2023, 01:18:53 PM »
I didn't go at the weekend but just don't think we are strong enough elsewhere to start Ponticelli, Stephens AND Barrett away from home, it's all well and good saying we can take the game to the opposition but you also have to be able to defend and win the ball back at times, maybe a case for giving Spence his first start this evening?
40
« on: August 15, 2023, 01:11:08 PM »
Disappointed in selection. Five across the back, plus a keeper? Never works. Fatadjo looked a player. Teams must pick players, and if still fall short, so be it….
Sorry Dilly but if playing three centre halves and two wing backs "never works" how the hell did we end up 2nd last season, equally how did Fylde manage to win the league with such a disadvantage of playing a system that never works? Success is a combination of the right players in the right system, hence I would expect us to play a bit differently to how we did for the second half of last season with Ponticelli as our main striker as opposed to Omotayo. Also can I ask which of the games you went to in pre-season that you thought Faradjo looked a player?
41
« on: August 05, 2023, 06:38:18 PM »
Forgot to add, thought the ref was excellent today - got most things right (always subjective) and also punished the Hereford delaying tactics which resulted in a better game, if only we had him for Buxton last season!
42
« on: August 05, 2023, 06:19:29 PM »
Plenty of positives from today. Only two starters who weren't with us last season - both wing backs - and both had good solid games. Hughes had a good game in the middle of the park and Stephens and Ponticelli both did well up top, although wish Stephens had been a bit more selfish with that chance rather than trying to set Ponts up for his hatrick as it gave their keeper (who had a very good game) the chance to make the save.
Still have concerns over the pace at the back and the lack of any real protection for the back line from the midfield - Hughes and Hargreaves are both good footballers and no real drop off when Spence was introduced but none of them are real 'ball winners'. Still very early days but it could be that MH's squad may have more in common with IC's in terms of how to win games than TW's.
43
« on: July 31, 2023, 01:25:52 PM »
...Attack still looks thin on the ground to me. For me Ponticelli and Stephens have a lot to prove in terms of regularly hitting the back of the net. I would give them 5 more games………if they don’t come up with the goods…then we have the youngsters recently signed up who must be given a go surely. We need someone who scores regularly……tap ins, pens, nothing spectacular, just regular goals. I am concerned we have forwards who can’t score from a one on one or a gilt edge chance, but occasionally score with a spectacular effort…….that won’t win games on a regular basis. Really hope the experienced front two prove me wrong.
For me Stephens was the most 'natural' goalscorer in the squad last season, the only real question I have is whether he can stay fit this year as he did come off in a number of games last year with 'niggles'. Ponticelli was outstanding at the start of last season, probably never going to be prolific but created loads of chances for others before getting injured but wasn't really the same when he came back and we were playing a slightly different style then too. Ultimately it will come down to how MH sets us up and that still seems to be unclear, hopefully he knows and we have to trust that will come off, without having seen anything in pre-season I am as worried about pace at the back and having enough 'nouse' in midfield as much as where the goals will come from.
44
« on: July 05, 2023, 01:13:27 PM »
Hereford (h) first game of the season on 5th August. Scunthopre visit midweek in the middle of November which isn't ideal for getting lots of visiting fans, Boston home on Boxing Day with the return on New Years Day.
45
« on: June 22, 2023, 02:21:57 PM »
I am in the 'not panicking' group at present. There is the core of a squad from last season, albeit with a couple of big losses (with maybe more to come) but we have to be realistic about things - we can't expect SC to continue with the level of financial doping that I would imagine he put in last year, even with the cup run and also, with remaining full-time we have to accept that we are unlikely to be the first choice for many players wanting to remain full-time footballers.
With that in mind, I am comfortable if we could attract one or two more experienced heads (I can't see Coulson lasting another full season pace wise) and then look for younger players who might be having pre-season trials higher up the pyramid but then don't get taken on. Not ideal for MH's first pre-season in charge but might be worth being patient to pick up a player or three who fall through the cracks.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 37
|