danoafc

.............Mr Ogden should have his life celebrated with a minutes applause whilst tragedies like Dumblane and Munich should be respected with a minutes silence..

This is, for me, where the issue gets blurred.

United fans would no doubt dismiss the idea, but what is wrong with a minute's applause to remember the victims of the Munich accident?

To assimilate this complete accident (tragic though it was) with the premeditated murder of school children is, in my eyes, lucacy.

It was tragic, of course it was, but if people can't see the difference between premeditated incidents like 9/11, Dunblane etc and tragic accidents in which innocent people were killed, then there is no hope of ever finding a happy medium.

I don't see the problem in celebrating the lives of people by applause, particularly in the cases of people like Fred Ogden and Chubb who both died of natural causes. Even in the case of Munich, it's 50 years ago now. can we not be sensible and move away from mourning and grieving to celebrating the lives of the brilliantly talented players who paved the way for English clubs to play in Europe.

There will always be one or two slightly grey areas such as Hillsborough and Bradford which of course weren't pre meditated and were tragic accidents, where a period of silence is wholly appropriate etc, but on the whole I don't see the issue with the applause thing.

I'll concede that to you Dan as you are much closer than I.

 

United are a million miles away from being run by the fans though and it certainly wasn't them who made the decision to have a minutes' silence.

No, indeed it wasn't at the fans request, but I guarantee that if Utd had come out and said they were having a minutes applause they would have been crucified by fans complainnig that they should be having a minutes silence as is traditional, let alone if they'd said it was at the request of City.

I think you are confusing United with a Club that give a crap about Man City.

 

Arsenal maybe, Liverpool definitely but City? They are irrelevant in their scheme of things and have been for years.

If you truly think that City are irrelevant to United, you've been living out of the area for too long IC. Particularly where the fans are concerned.

Difficult one this, I can see both points of view. I do feel that silence is more respectful but I think at least with applause it 'silences' the idiots who want to shout and be disrespectful.

 

I think it depends on the circumstances which is more appropriate. If it's something like Munich, Hilsborough or the Bradford fire then I think silence is more appropriate for the tragic loss of life, but with something like Fred Ogden who (whilst it's still very sad) lived to a ripe old age; we should stand up and applaud his outstanding contribution to our club.

 

One final ponit, I really, really hope City fans show respect on Sunday; come on lads do the right thing.

I think 99.9% of the City fans will observe the silence, but you can bet your boswelox that there will be one or two who don't.

Am I the only one cynical enough to thing that despite City's requests for a minute of applause, United have insisted on a minutes silence primarily with the 'respect' thing in mind but in full knowledge that they are giving those City fans the rope and an open invitation to hang themselves, and therefore the club by association?

Does anybody remember that place (Cant thinks of it's name) on Rock street facing the doctors that used to sell beers in Steins?

 

It was down some stairs and it was only a small place, but it had some great music and you used to have to sit down to drink as the steins were so heavy.

Was it Buddy's?

Dya know....that's even funnier...coz the first game I thought of when ya put that....was that Plymouth game!!! The car park after, walking from around the other side, was a farce.....absolutely full of muppets trying to kick off. Funny as owt though, coz the Old Bill was watching their every move and gripped a few too.

I'd forgotten about that game - when I read the post I was thinking of the game the year after which was also 2-2 and Friio, Shez and Muzza all got sent off, and almost most unbelievable of all, Beharall got BOTH our goals!!

I seem to remember their fans being overly impressed with the standard of officiating in the return leg at BP which we won 4-1

[Wayne Andrews or Jermaine Johnson - Never before leaving so many grounds have I feared a kicking because of a players actions so many times. Dive!

You could have put Paul frickin Beavers in against Johnson and he's have still lost for me - Chesterfield away. I'll say no more

Rick Holden

Joe Royle

Chris Porter

Earl Barrett

Richie Wellens

Wayne Andrews

Ronnie Jepson

Shaun Garnett (daftest of the lot)

Roger Palmer

John Sheridan

Jim Fryatt or David Shaw -bmt

Andy Barlow

Gunnar Halle

Andy Goram (early)

Agree 100% OS

Pobliacombli plays in Lellow!!

 

KtF,

 

Derek.

I suspect there are only 4 people in the world who have any idea what that little quote means Wilson, and you and I make up half of them!

Hope it's not curtains for Les but I fear it probably is.

= Pogs = Legend!

Put in those stark terms, it all looks like a choice between Fred and Rosemary West.

I'm not sure how else to dress it up Corporal, really, I'm not.

We may speculate to accumulate, get promoted and sweep all before us on our march back to the top half of the Championship and flirtations with the play-offs.

But, you and I know that should we not be playing well and getting the results that Mr and Mrs Fairweather (who don't currently come cos we aren't showing ambition) will soon get pissed off with watching us lose more often than not and knock it on the head.

The ridiculous thing is, that I agree with your sentiments that there is a VERY real and grave danger that stagnation becomes an unstoppable downward spiral. I agree that we need to try and retain our better players but we should not be held to ransom over this. Perhaps we as a club need to be more inventive about the contracts we offer (we had a discussion some time ago on another thread about this) by perhaps building in clauses to trigger extension options etc. It would seem on the reported clauses built into Ricketts contract that TTA may be learning quickly about this.

However, we are in the hands of TTA who -thus far- have been willing to foot the £15k per week losses. How much longer would they continue to do that should we increase those losses and reap no benefit.

I think that if one thing HAS become clear from this whole protracted debate, is that the next 2-5 years - one way or another - are critical to the future direction of OAFC.

I have to say also that I tend to agree with BB80 on his point about squad building though. I think that the money is there for Sheridan, I just think he has chosen not to utilise it yet.

It would seem to me to be reasonable enough to conclude that Shez had brought in Jarrett and Livermore on loan deals with a view to perhaps making them perm in the summer. He's already admitted that he'd tried to sign Jarrett previously. For all we know TTA could have told JS that he can have £x now to bolster the squad, or as it's looking unlikely that we're gonna get promoted this year that he can have that money in an increase summer budget, or war chest as BB80 said.

I haven't got an action plan. I have never claimed to have an action plan.

 

I have, however, wondered if the club has an action plan for the football side of things.

Ok, quick a simple question and if I wasn't so lazy, I'd put up a poll.

Do people generally think that the better option is to

1) Spend extra money now to retain our better players on a longer term basis and bring in some new blood, increasing our operating losses but potentially giving us the chance to watch better football, gain promotion, and thus increase crowds to a point at which we are covering/exceeding the extra operating losses in the hope we can maintain this until the ground is redeveloped and the operating losses are covered this way? The gamble with this option of course is that we don't gain promotion and crowds don't increase - or we gain promotion but crowds don't increase sufficiently to allow us to compete at a higher level leading to crowds (I'm talking about the fairweather increase here) dropping away as we're struggling to compete.

2) Do as we are now, trying to maintain a squad which has a slim chance of getting us promoted but also runs the risk of us being relegated until the ground is redeveloped - or at least part redeveloped. This could of course take another 2/3/4/5 years etc. That is of course the gamble in this option. The pay-off comes if and when the ground redevelopment gets well underway, bringing in additional income from both football and non footballing sources (a new mainstand alone would bring in more revenue simply due to facilities such as bars/lounges and executive boxes etc giving a better matchday experience), thus allowing us to offer better/longer contracts to players without significantly increasinging operating losses at all.

I don't see your point. Your personal situation and that of a sporting club that has, like all others, to speculate in order to accumulate, are in no way the same.

 

Why does being labelled a happy clapper upset people so much?

I have to say Corporal, I do understand where you are coming from, however, maybe TTA see that as too much of a risk right now.

They may well be willing to 'speculate to accumulate' as it's been said to get us out of this division. The longer term implications of that have to be considered as well though.

If we did spend a few extra quid - maybe not huge sums, but perhaps more than would be considered 'safe', what happens when we get promoted? We then have to speculate to accumulate to stay in that division. We already know that the wages in the championship are significantly higher than they are in this league. What happens if we start badly and are around the bottom 3 or 4 come November and December? The 'new found' fans will soon be sick of watching us get beat week in week out and the whole thing starts over.

Now I'm not saying that we shouldn't be prepared to have a stab at it, just that I'd rather we were in a position (as a club) where we could sustain the higher wages by having better facilities/revenue streams etc rather than a bust or boom scenario.

Stam - decent player - ocassionally does get caught out of position and does not posess blistering pace - but he has played well alongside Gregan, alongside Trotman and latterly alongside Hazell - the question for me is who would be the first choice centreback pairing when both Gregan and Thompson are fully fit?

 

Gregan and Stam for me - Hazell as first choice cover

 

and finally- To sell Trotman was a mistake in my opinion but then again the way Trotman has been viewed by Shez mystifys me (only brought in when he was absolutely forced to and then to only hand the guy a short term contract )

Hazell as cover?! Neither Stam nor Gregan are blessed with pace so apart from anything else Hazell stays in by virtue of that alone.

That apart, Hazell has been virtually foot perfect at CB and formed a fantastic partnership with Greegs before his injury.

Gregan in for Stam for me when he's fit enough.

And I fail to see why Shez' take on Trotman was that surprising. He's a kid who'd barely played any first team footie. Why would he have thrown him into the mix any earlier? Shez went on record late last season/early this saying that he thought Trotters was gonna be an excellent player and would get his opportunity, just not at that precise moment.

I'm sure given the choice Shez would rather have kept him but there was an opportunity on the table to get a good deal for the club, a good deal for Trotters and the opportunity to bring in the likes of Livermore and Jarrett - and still retain the ability to pay the wages of a decent striker when we get one in on loan.

hasnt cost us anything i know that, we got a "donation" from walsall which paid the compensation, thats why we talked to walsalll before releasing him, we wouldnt just let him go, cost ourselves valuable money and not get a fee for him,

 

the only reason we released him instead of give him a free transfer to walsall is so that walsall have more time to negotiate terms with him,

 

if we give him a free transfer then walsall only had a day to get everything sorted, if not we were stuck with him, where as if we released him (which we did) he would be a free agent, therefore walsall have as long as they want to sign him and negotiate terms etc.

What, and meanwhile he's not getting paid? Behave. Walsall have been trying to negotiate terms for days with him according to their website.

No-but they would bring in more money than 4000.

 

And if we actually managed to get out of the division, who knows-we might get even more coming!

 

Football's funny like that.

Didn't TTA say that to break even (on the current losses) we'd need something like 7800/8000 fans per home game at BP?

So on that rationale, if we spend another 2 or 300k on a striker and include their wages, we'd need min 8000 plus fans per week at BP?

Sorry Corporal but if you think that's gonna happen then you are miles out. When have we EVER attracted those kinds of crowds? Apart from the pinch me seasons when it was comparatively far cheaper to get into games AND most clubs could compete on a reasonably level footing.

The game is totally different now.

The only way we are likely to progress is to commence with the rebuilding work, bring in some of the peripheral money making enterprises such as the corporate cponsorship/banquesting/conferenceing etc. Improve the matchday environment and experience.

Then perhaps we can start to invest some real money on the playing squad. Even then, I'd guess that 7-8000 is about the best we could hope for in the first instance.

Would this be a link from the official site then, Matt?

Football Transfers Are About to Change Forever

 

Some interesting thoughts on the implications of the recent ruling on Andy Webster. He wanted to leave Hearts but was under contract. After a protracted dispute the Court of Arbitration in Sport has decided that he is only liable for the remaining value of his contract. Hearts wanted £4.6m; they'll get £150,000.

 

The implication is this: clubs can buy players for no more than the remaining value of their contract. As the linked article suggests, that would mean that Ronaldo and Fabregas will be "worth" £12m each in 2010. So will clubs stop offering long contracts? Will transfer fees plummet? Will we see a greater revolving door of players in and out as their contracts are snapped up?

Very, VERY worrying! Particularly for smalls clubs.

Somebody posted a point on here last night about their being too much player & agent power in the modern game, and this ruling simply tips the balance further in their favour.

My guess -NOT saying I'd do this, but I guess at:

 

GK - Crossley

 

RB - Eardley

CB - hazell

CB - Stam

LB - Lomax

 

RM - Smalley

CM - Allott

CM - Jarrett

CM - McDonald

LM - Livermore

 

CF - Davies

I think that's the line up we'll which will start with Allessandra on the bench. I think that the added drive and bite in MF might just help Davies' game no end too.

Too much player/agent power. Very few care about anything but themselves, wait until the last hour and wait for the best offer. Really annoys me, however, do we really need some mercenary who will sign for any club who meet their extortionate demands? Whilst i think Shez often doesn't have a plan B on the pitch, i'm not bothered about a plan b in the transfer market. If he thinks a player wouldn't be appropriate thats fine by me. Let the kids play, they are talented and really care for this club. Much rather watch lomax/black/alessandra than a journeyman.

Sorry BARNS, hadn't seen this but posted virtually the same thing almost word for word elsewhere on the board. Spot on mate.

To be fair Andy, I think that most of the "statements" that we saw reflected the agreed "no comment" policy that was in place between OAFC and Ricketts.

 

Totally agree though that Club Officials shouldn't be using any Messageboard to quash rumour.

Was never suggesting they use the board to quash the rumour. Was saying that they will have known about the rumours because they READ these boards.

The thing is though Dan, if some of those rumours had been confirmed as true by OAFC, just what kind of reception would Ricketts have got? Maybe it wouldn't have been limited to a few moronic "die Ricketts die" chants and could have been far worse and possibly physical.

 

Maybe also the Club were concerned that Ricketts may well have to come back at some stage and play for us.

 

In the past when the Club have washed their linen in public (Killen; Porter; Council), then they have been criticised by many. Perhaps keeping quiet is best after all since they don't appear to be able to win?

Fair point Jeff. I'm not saying the rumours are or aren't true, but one thing I will guarantee you is that football is guaranteed to stir up the most extreme emotions in almost all of us that watch from the terraces. both parties MUST have known that there was gonna be a backlash of some description.

The club didn't have to confirm exactly what happended but their absolute silence on the matter did nobody any favours from that point of view. You aren't trying to tell me that club officials don;t read this board. They'd have seen the rumours about the punch up with Taylor or whatever. They could easily have come out an quashed that by saying that it never happened or whatever.

And as a final point - JJS - I agree that it's disgusting what was being sung. Bang out of order but I doubt that any of them meant it for a second. They were angry and frustrated and lashed out by singing the nastiest thing they could. I dount that any of them were actually singing 'for his death' when it comes right down to it, same as when lots of people sing 'let him die' when an oppo player is down injured. It doesn't make it right, but I do understand it. As I said, football brings out the best and worst in most of us.

Wow....a post about Ricketts with people wishing good things on him and wanting him to stay, get fit and play for us. I'm stunned. But chuffed!

 

Can I just add to it then.....for me, we don't need a new striker if the hatchet can be buried with Ricketts. Highly questionable that it can be though. I'd love nothing more than to see him come back, bag a :censored:load of goals and see the fickle "die, die Ricketts" wankers singing his name in praise!

I just want to make a point about those chants Ross. Whilst I in no way condone them (they were moronic at the very best), I do think the club should have come out and stated the reasons why they were shipping Ricketts out on loan as soon as it happended. At least that way none of the rumour mongering about him smacking Taylor or stealing Hardy's newborns would have been allowed to manifest itself in the way it did. The very fact they didn't do so led to the obvious conclusion that something was 'wrong'.

A lesson from which all concerned can learn perhaps?

Bad news.

 

As he's injured he can't play for us even if we want him to and now teams are going to be put off buying him permenantly until the summer so we'll be paying his supposed big wages.

He can still go back on a season long loan when he's fit.

the chron says we are working on getting a proven goal scorer in who is proven in league one and above.

was at bp this morning sorting things out.

Gotta be Vernon surely?

Derby keeper Stephen Bywater (ex-Rochdale) joins Ipswich on loan until end of Season.

Dislike him intensely after his 'antics' in the play-off semi!