Julian Rhodes insists Bradford City have made strides with Phil Parkinson

Bradford Telegraph and Argus: Phil Parkinson inherited a City squad that was "worse than the previous season" Phil Parkinson inherited a City squad that was "worse than the previous season"

Julian Rhodes today denied he had set the bar too low by insisting survival was the only goal for City last season.

The Bantams matched the previous year’s 18th-placed finish but the joint-chairman believes the club have made strides under Phil Parkinson.

And he claims another disappointing campaign was mainly down to the “mistakes” that Peter Jackson made in the transfer market last summer.

Rhodes said: “I reckon we’ve ended up with the fifth-largest budget in League Two. But we had to spend a lot of money to rebuild the squad because it patently wasn’t good enough.

“We were only going one way. Our squad at the start was worse than the season before, when we only just survived, and the division was better.

“It was hard work to turn it round but we have spent a lot of money on people who clearly weren’t up to the job.

It was hard work to turn it round but we have spent a lot of money on people who clearly weren’t up to the job

Julian Rhodes

“We spent all season down the bottom because of the mistakes we made last summer. Phil needs to be judged on how we get on next season.”

Parkinson took over at the end of August after Jackson suddenly walked away. Rhodes insisted that cash had been made available to the previous boss to put things right.

He said: “I don’t care what anybody says, the first four games of the season were terrible – particularly the two at home. Those two rank along some of the worst performances I’ve ever seen.

“Anyone watching that who didn’t think we were going out of the league are kidding themselves. The alarm bells were ringing.

“We saw it wasn’t working and Peter agreed. We told him money was there to strengthen, which we had to do, but instead he decided to do the honourable thing and stepped down.

“If your squad isn’t good enough, you’ve got problems. It was difficult for Phil because he came in when the transfer window was about to shut.

“He had to look at loan signings and players who weren’t tied up for one reason or another.

“I don’t think we’ve done great with the loans but permanent signings like Kyel Reid and Marcel Seip were instrumental in keeping us in the division.”

City never got above the bottom seven all season but Rhodes has seen enough in Parkinson to feel more confident for the future.

He said: “I think Phil’s done well. There are a few things I’ve fallen out with him about, which you do over the course of the season.

“In the main, I just told him to make sure we stayed in the league and he did that with three games to spare.

“We had to spend money to do it but now we move on. Everybody is enthusiastic about it.

“Look at the home record from November onwards with only one defeat in 15 games. That’s quite impressive from a team that was struggling.

“Hopefully we can take that on into next season. I know some of the signings he wants to make will strengthen the squad.”

Sources on the south coast are linking City with right winger Kelvin Etuhu, who played 13 games for Portsmouth last season.

Cash-strapped Pompey want to re-sign him but are currently not in a position to do anything until their ownership is resolved.

Comments (63)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:21am Sat 12 May 12

Village Bantam says...

I he's absolutely right and I've been saying the same all season.

Anyone who knows anything about football would heap praise on PP for what he did with the limited options available to him.

He came in at the end of the transfer window when pretty much all the best players had been snapped up, yet he still found some good players but he had to delve into the loan market taking all that was available and we can all agree they didn't quite live up to expectation barring Davies - I'm certain PP would say the same though when you need a player to fill a problem position and there's very few left - what can you do?

I'm 100% confident that PP will sign quality in the summer, if not Davies quality, then Reid quality and I'm certain that we will go up automatically next time around, that's how much belief I have in the guy whom I regard as one of the best outside the Prem.

However, it's quite disturbing to read so many negative comments before he's even been given a fair crack of the whip.

Can't we all agree to give the guy the summer at least to see the signings he makes before executing him?

Etuhu is another Championship winger in the mould of Reid and if we manage to sign him, then we're already gonna be a better team than last year as one of the main problems we had was the right flank which since it was so ineffective, gave the opposition the opportunity to double up on Reid - two flying wingers would give us options down both sides of the pitch and will both keep the opposition on the back foot more often and give us more attacking options at the same time.

PP isn't daft, he saw the same problems as we all did, however he was unable to do anything about it as there was no one available to sign except the likes of Howarth or Atkinson etc.

He's identified the problems and is immediately trying to sign better players to fill the positions.

The board have said his close season preparations are the most professional they've ever seen, which doesn't surprise me and they've also said the list of wanted players is very impressive which is what I'd expect of PP.

He's got my full backing and although I don't expect to change anyone's mind about him, at least wait with the undeserved abuse until he makes a few signings.

I think you're going to look very foolish come the end of next season when you're jumping on the bandwagon and cheering his name but hey.
I he's absolutely right and I've been saying the same all season. Anyone who knows anything about football would heap praise on PP for what he did with the limited options available to him. He came in at the end of the transfer window when pretty much all the best players had been snapped up, yet he still found some good players but he had to delve into the loan market taking all that was available and we can all agree they didn't quite live up to expectation barring Davies - I'm certain PP would say the same though when you need a player to fill a problem position and there's very few left - what can you do? I'm 100% confident that PP will sign quality in the summer, if not Davies quality, then Reid quality and I'm certain that we will go up automatically next time around, that's how much belief I have in the guy whom I regard as one of the best outside the Prem. However, it's quite disturbing to read so many negative comments before he's even been given a fair crack of the whip. Can't we all agree to give the guy the summer at least to see the signings he makes before executing him? Etuhu is another Championship winger in the mould of Reid and if we manage to sign him, then we're already gonna be a better team than last year as one of the main problems we had was the right flank which since it was so ineffective, gave the opposition the opportunity to double up on Reid - two flying wingers would give us options down both sides of the pitch and will both keep the opposition on the back foot more often and give us more attacking options at the same time. PP isn't daft, he saw the same problems as we all did, however he was unable to do anything about it as there was no one available to sign except the likes of Howarth or Atkinson etc. He's identified the problems and is immediately trying to sign better players to fill the positions. The board have said his close season preparations are the most professional they've ever seen, which doesn't surprise me and they've also said the list of wanted players is very impressive which is what I'd expect of PP. He's got my full backing and although I don't expect to change anyone's mind about him, at least wait with the undeserved abuse until he makes a few signings. I think you're going to look very foolish come the end of next season when you're jumping on the bandwagon and cheering his name but hey. Village Bantam
  • Score: 0

9:41am Sat 12 May 12

brigden says...

We have not heard anything from Jacko since he left but after this derogatory statement
from the Chairman he has every right to reply and lets hope we hear from him as I am sure there was another side to this story!
We have not heard anything from Jacko since he left but after this derogatory statement from the Chairman he has every right to reply and lets hope we hear from him as I am sure there was another side to this story! brigden
  • Score: 0

9:54am Sat 12 May 12

Mick, Cleckheaton says...

Village Bantam wrote:
I he's absolutely right and I've been saying the same all season.

Anyone who knows anything about football would heap praise on PP for what he did with the limited options available to him.

He came in at the end of the transfer window when pretty much all the best players had been snapped up, yet he still found some good players but he had to delve into the loan market taking all that was available and we can all agree they didn't quite live up to expectation barring Davies - I'm certain PP would say the same though when you need a player to fill a problem position and there's very few left - what can you do?

I'm 100% confident that PP will sign quality in the summer, if not Davies quality, then Reid quality and I'm certain that we will go up automatically next time around, that's how much belief I have in the guy whom I regard as one of the best outside the Prem.

However, it's quite disturbing to read so many negative comments before he's even been given a fair crack of the whip.

Can't we all agree to give the guy the summer at least to see the signings he makes before executing him?

Etuhu is another Championship winger in the mould of Reid and if we manage to sign him, then we're already gonna be a better team than last year as one of the main problems we had was the right flank which since it was so ineffective, gave the opposition the opportunity to double up on Reid - two flying wingers would give us options down both sides of the pitch and will both keep the opposition on the back foot more often and give us more attacking options at the same time.

PP isn't daft, he saw the same problems as we all did, however he was unable to do anything about it as there was no one available to sign except the likes of Howarth or Atkinson etc.

He's identified the problems and is immediately trying to sign better players to fill the positions.

The board have said his close season preparations are the most professional they've ever seen, which doesn't surprise me and they've also said the list of wanted players is very impressive which is what I'd expect of PP.

He's got my full backing and although I don't expect to change anyone's mind about him, at least wait with the undeserved abuse until he makes a few signings.

I think you're going to look very foolish come the end of next season when you're jumping on the bandwagon and cheering his name but hey.
It makes a refreshing change to have some positivity on here and I would certainly echo these comments.

However, you can expect the usual tirade of abuse and negativity from the know nowts when they drag themselves out of bed.
[quote][p][bold]Village Bantam[/bold] wrote: I he's absolutely right and I've been saying the same all season. Anyone who knows anything about football would heap praise on PP for what he did with the limited options available to him. He came in at the end of the transfer window when pretty much all the best players had been snapped up, yet he still found some good players but he had to delve into the loan market taking all that was available and we can all agree they didn't quite live up to expectation barring Davies - I'm certain PP would say the same though when you need a player to fill a problem position and there's very few left - what can you do? I'm 100% confident that PP will sign quality in the summer, if not Davies quality, then Reid quality and I'm certain that we will go up automatically next time around, that's how much belief I have in the guy whom I regard as one of the best outside the Prem. However, it's quite disturbing to read so many negative comments before he's even been given a fair crack of the whip. Can't we all agree to give the guy the summer at least to see the signings he makes before executing him? Etuhu is another Championship winger in the mould of Reid and if we manage to sign him, then we're already gonna be a better team than last year as one of the main problems we had was the right flank which since it was so ineffective, gave the opposition the opportunity to double up on Reid - two flying wingers would give us options down both sides of the pitch and will both keep the opposition on the back foot more often and give us more attacking options at the same time. PP isn't daft, he saw the same problems as we all did, however he was unable to do anything about it as there was no one available to sign except the likes of Howarth or Atkinson etc. He's identified the problems and is immediately trying to sign better players to fill the positions. The board have said his close season preparations are the most professional they've ever seen, which doesn't surprise me and they've also said the list of wanted players is very impressive which is what I'd expect of PP. He's got my full backing and although I don't expect to change anyone's mind about him, at least wait with the undeserved abuse until he makes a few signings. I think you're going to look very foolish come the end of next season when you're jumping on the bandwagon and cheering his name but hey.[/p][/quote]It makes a refreshing change to have some positivity on here and I would certainly echo these comments. However, you can expect the usual tirade of abuse and negativity from the know nowts when they drag themselves out of bed. Mick, Cleckheaton
  • Score: 0

9:59am Sat 12 May 12

nowt fresh says...

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZ, same old rhetoric from the usual suspects,didn't Julian say he thought we could have back to back promotions under McCall,based on last season I'll nail my colours to the mast and say I was not convinved Phil Parkinson was/is the man for the job of giving our club a bit of dignity back after 10 years of decline,but I will give him time to rebuild his squad and judge him around Christmas.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZ, same old rhetoric from the usual suspects,didn't Julian say he thought we could have back to back promotions under McCall,based on last season I'll nail my colours to the mast and say I was not convinved Phil Parkinson was/is the man for the job of giving our club a bit of dignity back after 10 years of decline,but I will give him time to rebuild his squad and judge him around Christmas. nowt fresh
  • Score: 0

9:59am Sat 12 May 12

ricky76 says...

brigden wrote:
We have not heard anything from Jacko since he left but after this derogatory statement
from the Chairman he has every right to reply and lets hope we hear from him as I am sure there was another side to this story!
I said this when Jacko left although I am Jacko biggest fan he or any manager should have a right to say their side of the story like the chairmen should.If Jacko keeps quiet makes you wonder if everything said is true by JR and ML as I dont buy into the fact you cant express your views and opinions you only have to look at the Levenson inquiry to know that
[quote][p][bold]brigden[/bold] wrote: We have not heard anything from Jacko since he left but after this derogatory statement from the Chairman he has every right to reply and lets hope we hear from him as I am sure there was another side to this story![/p][/quote]I said this when Jacko left although I am Jacko biggest fan he or any manager should have a right to say their side of the story like the chairmen should.If Jacko keeps quiet makes you wonder if everything said is true by JR and ML as I dont buy into the fact you cant express your views and opinions you only have to look at the Levenson inquiry to know that ricky76
  • Score: 0

10:27am Sat 12 May 12

phil66 says...

phil66 says...
8:25am Fri 27 Apr 12

Chaps, i got this text last night from a mate who got the text from someone thats well connected at VP... Flynn gone, Mitchell gone.Syers Duke and Fagen going. Luton want Branston. Deal agreed with Caley for Williams. Trying to folg Hannah. Someone trying to buy Jones,he's on the most cash. All new players identifed for next season.Already signed winger from Reading.After Etuhu from Pompy depends on wages. Centre mid from Port Vale. Bogdanavic from Blackpool. Full back/centre mid from Aldershot plus a few more players one from Gateshead,one from York. All dev squad told to find new clubs.... AGAIN dont shoot the messager , it was a text i got. UPDATE 12/05/12... Guess my mate was right ??
phil66 says... 8:25am Fri 27 Apr 12 Chaps, i got this text last night from a mate who got the text from someone thats well connected at VP... Flynn gone, Mitchell gone.Syers Duke and Fagen going. Luton want Branston. Deal agreed with Caley for Williams. Trying to folg Hannah. Someone trying to buy Jones,he's on the most cash. All new players identifed for next season.Already signed winger from Reading.After Etuhu from Pompy depends on wages. Centre mid from Port Vale. Bogdanavic from Blackpool. Full back/centre mid from Aldershot plus a few more players one from Gateshead,one from York. All dev squad told to find new clubs.... AGAIN dont shoot the messager , it was a text i got. UPDATE 12/05/12... Guess my mate was right ?? phil66
  • Score: 0

10:33am Sat 12 May 12

claytonbantam says...

Just Typed Kelvin Etuhu in google and second option was Kelvin Etuhu Prison sounds like he's already fitting the criteria to play for us
Just Typed Kelvin Etuhu in google and second option was Kelvin Etuhu Prison sounds like he's already fitting the criteria to play for us claytonbantam
  • Score: 0

11:40am Sat 12 May 12

shaun from richmond says...

ricky76 wrote:
brigden wrote: We have not heard anything from Jacko since he left but after this derogatory statement from the Chairman he has every right to reply and lets hope we hear from him as I am sure there was another side to this story!
I said this when Jacko left although I am Jacko biggest fan he or any manager should have a right to say their side of the story like the chairmen should.If Jacko keeps quiet makes you wonder if everything said is true by JR and ML as I dont buy into the fact you cant express your views and opinions you only have to look at the Levenson inquiry to know that
Julian Rhodes!!.....You should be ashamed of yourself!!.
UTTER GARBAGE!!.
And you know it!!.
[quote][p][bold]ricky76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brigden[/bold] wrote: We have not heard anything from Jacko since he left but after this derogatory statement from the Chairman he has every right to reply and lets hope we hear from him as I am sure there was another side to this story![/p][/quote]I said this when Jacko left although I am Jacko biggest fan he or any manager should have a right to say their side of the story like the chairmen should.If Jacko keeps quiet makes you wonder if everything said is true by JR and ML as I dont buy into the fact you cant express your views and opinions you only have to look at the Levenson inquiry to know that[/p][/quote]Julian Rhodes!!.....You should be ashamed of yourself!!. UTTER GARBAGE!!. And you know it!!. shaun from richmond
  • Score: 0

12:07pm Sat 12 May 12

ricky76 says...

shaun from richmond wrote:
ricky76 wrote:
brigden wrote: We have not heard anything from Jacko since he left but after this derogatory statement from the Chairman he has every right to reply and lets hope we hear from him as I am sure there was another side to this story!
I said this when Jacko left although I am Jacko biggest fan he or any manager should have a right to say their side of the story like the chairmen should.If Jacko keeps quiet makes you wonder if everything said is true by JR and ML as I dont buy into the fact you cant express your views and opinions you only have to look at the Levenson inquiry to know that
Julian Rhodes!!.....You should be ashamed of yourself!!.
UTTER GARBAGE!!.
And you know it!!.
Enlighen us Shaun you seem to think the sun shines out of your mate Jackos arse. If Jacko was sacked as some claim rather than walking he is entitled to make comment about his side of the story and no court in the would say otherwise as he is free to do as he feels if that was the case.
[quote][p][bold]shaun from richmond[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ricky76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brigden[/bold] wrote: We have not heard anything from Jacko since he left but after this derogatory statement from the Chairman he has every right to reply and lets hope we hear from him as I am sure there was another side to this story![/p][/quote]I said this when Jacko left although I am Jacko biggest fan he or any manager should have a right to say their side of the story like the chairmen should.If Jacko keeps quiet makes you wonder if everything said is true by JR and ML as I dont buy into the fact you cant express your views and opinions you only have to look at the Levenson inquiry to know that[/p][/quote]Julian Rhodes!!.....You should be ashamed of yourself!!. UTTER GARBAGE!!. And you know it!!.[/p][/quote]Enlighen us Shaun you seem to think the sun shines out of your mate Jackos arse. If Jacko was sacked as some claim rather than walking he is entitled to make comment about his side of the story and no court in the would say otherwise as he is free to do as he feels if that was the case. ricky76
  • Score: 0

12:07pm Sat 12 May 12

pollyperks67 says...

i have 2 agree with shaun that is utter garbage,in my opinion we would of finnished higher under jacko,and the only reason jacko aint talked because he was bought off,and he does right if i got sacked or lets say as jr said done the honourable thing,and part of buying out my contract was not 2 talk,only a fool would talk and anybody who thinks different is naive,i will give pp 15ish games, and if we r not in the mix then its bye bye for me, coz im judging him on this season and he aint pulled any trees up 4 me ctid
i have 2 agree with shaun that is utter garbage,in my opinion we would of finnished higher under jacko,and the only reason jacko aint talked because he was bought off,and he does right if i got sacked or lets say as jr said done the honourable thing,and part of buying out my contract was not 2 talk,only a fool would talk and anybody who thinks different is naive,i will give pp 15ish games, and if we r not in the mix then its bye bye for me, coz im judging him on this season and he aint pulled any trees up 4 me ctid pollyperks67
  • Score: 0

12:16pm Sat 12 May 12

i miss stallard & murray says...

Lets be positive this is in the passed. I actually feel for the chairmen they have backed most managers and have been let down. I am not a fan of pp but given the players released and retained it looks like we have a plan to improve. A lot of deadwood has been addressed. To succeed we now need team moral competition for places no favourites and positive football. This shud be the brief from the board.
Lets be positive this is in the passed. I actually feel for the chairmen they have backed most managers and have been let down. I am not a fan of pp but given the players released and retained it looks like we have a plan to improve. A lot of deadwood has been addressed. To succeed we now need team moral competition for places no favourites and positive football. This shud be the brief from the board. i miss stallard & murray
  • Score: 0

12:16pm Sat 12 May 12

i miss stallard & murray says...

Lets be positive this is in the passed. I actually feel for the chairmen they have backed most managers and have been let down. I am not a fan of pp but given the players released and retained it looks like we have a plan to improve. A lot of deadwood has been addressed. To succeed we now need team moral competition for places no favourites and positive football. This shud be the brief from the board.
Lets be positive this is in the passed. I actually feel for the chairmen they have backed most managers and have been let down. I am not a fan of pp but given the players released and retained it looks like we have a plan to improve. A lot of deadwood has been addressed. To succeed we now need team moral competition for places no favourites and positive football. This shud be the brief from the board. i miss stallard & murray
  • Score: 0

12:27pm Sat 12 May 12

bingleybantam says...

11 years of decline and only 1 constant at BCFC....Julian Rhodes. Going no where while he and Lawn are in control of our club.
11 years of decline and only 1 constant at BCFC....Julian Rhodes. Going no where while he and Lawn are in control of our club. bingleybantam
  • Score: 0

1:41pm Sat 12 May 12

Nickloza says...

bingleybantam wrote:
11 years of decline and only 1 constant at BCFC....Julian Rhodes. Going no where while he and Lawn are in control of our club.
There wouldn't even be city if not for them two if you can do better buy them out!
[quote][p][bold]bingleybantam[/bold] wrote: 11 years of decline and only 1 constant at BCFC....Julian Rhodes. Going no where while he and Lawn are in control of our club.[/p][/quote]There wouldn't even be city if not for them two if you can do better buy them out! Nickloza
  • Score: 0

1:52pm Sat 12 May 12

ricky76 says...

Nickloza wrote:
bingleybantam wrote:
11 years of decline and only 1 constant at BCFC....Julian Rhodes. Going no where while he and Lawn are in control of our club.
There wouldn't even be city if not for them two if you can do better buy them out!
Totally agree Nick too many on here look for all the negatives its quite simple without JR and ML we dont have a club when will people realise that.
[quote][p][bold]Nickloza[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bingleybantam[/bold] wrote: 11 years of decline and only 1 constant at BCFC....Julian Rhodes. Going no where while he and Lawn are in control of our club.[/p][/quote]There wouldn't even be city if not for them two if you can do better buy them out![/p][/quote]Totally agree Nick too many on here look for all the negatives its quite simple without JR and ML we dont have a club when will people realise that. ricky76
  • Score: 0

1:52pm Sat 12 May 12

Nickloza says...

phil66 wrote:
phil66 says...
8:25am Fri 27 Apr 12

Chaps, i got this text last night from a mate who got the text from someone thats well connected at VP... Flynn gone, Mitchell gone.Syers Duke and Fagen going. Luton want Branston. Deal agreed with Caley for Williams. Trying to folg Hannah. Someone trying to buy Jones,he's on the most cash. All new players identifed for next season.Already signed winger from Reading.After Etuhu from Pompy depends on wages. Centre mid from Port Vale. Bogdanavic from Blackpool. Full back/centre mid from Aldershot plus a few more players one from Gateshead,one from York. All dev squad told to find new clubs.... AGAIN dont shoot the messager , it was a text i got. UPDATE 12/05/12... Guess my mate was right ??
http://www1.skysport
s.com/football/news/
11750/7751048/ List of players released.
[quote][p][bold]phil66[/bold] wrote: phil66 says... 8:25am Fri 27 Apr 12 Chaps, i got this text last night from a mate who got the text from someone thats well connected at VP... Flynn gone, Mitchell gone.Syers Duke and Fagen going. Luton want Branston. Deal agreed with Caley for Williams. Trying to folg Hannah. Someone trying to buy Jones,he's on the most cash. All new players identifed for next season.Already signed winger from Reading.After Etuhu from Pompy depends on wages. Centre mid from Port Vale. Bogdanavic from Blackpool. Full back/centre mid from Aldershot plus a few more players one from Gateshead,one from York. All dev squad told to find new clubs.... AGAIN dont shoot the messager , it was a text i got. UPDATE 12/05/12... Guess my mate was right ??[/p][/quote]http://www1.skysport s.com/football/news/ 11750/7751048/ List of players released. Nickloza
  • Score: 0

3:47pm Sat 12 May 12

yangyeight says...

i always had respect for rhodes but not anymore.
to blame this season on a guy who was pushed out in august is just a joke.
1st 4 games we looked doom?
we looked doomed in march so how can that be jacko's fault?
never thought i would say this but he as seriously made me think about telling him to stick my season ticket up his ar-se!
talk about scapegoating someone for what is clearly not his fault.
he had 8 months of the season and a transfer window so don't say he did not have time.
rhodes you pr-ick!
i always had respect for rhodes but not anymore. to blame this season on a guy who was pushed out in august is just a joke. 1st 4 games we looked doom? we looked doomed in march so how can that be jacko's fault? never thought i would say this but he as seriously made me think about telling him to stick my season ticket up his ar-se! talk about scapegoating someone for what is clearly not his fault. he had 8 months of the season and a transfer window so don't say he did not have time. rhodes you pr-ick! yangyeight
  • Score: 0

3:56pm Sat 12 May 12

yangyeight says...

why don't the club arrange a press conference next week and give jacko a chance to explain what happened when he left, no?
dint think so, pri-cks.
i cannot stand people being blamed for things that happen so long after they leave.
sunderland manager came in later than him dint buy anyone and did ok. excuses excuses.
i will remember the 1st comment when we are mid table next xmas.
why don't the club arrange a press conference next week and give jacko a chance to explain what happened when he left, no? dint think so, pri-cks. i cannot stand people being blamed for things that happen so long after they leave. sunderland manager came in later than him dint buy anyone and did ok. excuses excuses. i will remember the 1st comment when we are mid table next xmas. yangyeight
  • Score: 0

4:34pm Sat 12 May 12

Onebrianmitchell says...

Let's just assess where we are at as of today. Below is a list of players who are retained and contracted or who have been offered contracts.

Syers
Oliver
Ramsden
Jonny Mac
Baker
Hanson
Hannah
Wells

Duke
Jones
Ravenhill
Reid

12 players broken down into to groups. One twice as big as the other.

Can anyone see why I've broken them into 2 groups?

Rather dispels the theory doesn't it?
Let's just assess where we are at as of today. Below is a list of players who are retained and contracted or who have been offered contracts. Syers Oliver Ramsden Jonny Mac Baker Hanson Hannah Wells Duke Jones Ravenhill Reid 12 players broken down into to groups. One twice as big as the other. Can anyone see why I've broken them into 2 groups? Rather dispels the theory doesn't it? Onebrianmitchell
  • Score: 0

4:39pm Sat 12 May 12

lonniejockstrap says...

phil66 wrote:
phil66 says...
8:25am Fri 27 Apr 12

Chaps, i got this text last night from a mate who got the text from someone thats well connected at VP... Flynn gone, Mitchell gone.Syers Duke and Fagen going. Luton want Branston. Deal agreed with Caley for Williams. Trying to folg Hannah. Someone trying to buy Jones,he's on the most cash. All new players identifed for next season.Already signed winger from Reading.After Etuhu from Pompy depends on wages. Centre mid from Port Vale. Bogdanavic from Blackpool. Full back/centre mid from Aldershot plus a few more players one from Gateshead,one from York. All dev squad told to find new clubs.... AGAIN dont shoot the messager , it was a text i got. UPDATE 12/05/12... Guess my mate was right ??
Yep, its definitely the most accurate pieces of unofficial info I have come across on this site. Well done to you and your mate. I was waiting to see how it turned out from when you first posted before I was going to comment lets see how the unconfirmed -to date- bits turn out eg Jones/Hannah etc. The 'dev squad' bit also appears to have been confirmed I see.
[quote][p][bold]phil66[/bold] wrote: phil66 says... 8:25am Fri 27 Apr 12 Chaps, i got this text last night from a mate who got the text from someone thats well connected at VP... Flynn gone, Mitchell gone.Syers Duke and Fagen going. Luton want Branston. Deal agreed with Caley for Williams. Trying to folg Hannah. Someone trying to buy Jones,he's on the most cash. All new players identifed for next season.Already signed winger from Reading.After Etuhu from Pompy depends on wages. Centre mid from Port Vale. Bogdanavic from Blackpool. Full back/centre mid from Aldershot plus a few more players one from Gateshead,one from York. All dev squad told to find new clubs.... AGAIN dont shoot the messager , it was a text i got. UPDATE 12/05/12... Guess my mate was right ??[/p][/quote]Yep, its definitely the most accurate pieces of unofficial info I have come across on this site. Well done to you and your mate. I was waiting to see how it turned out from when you first posted before I was going to comment lets see how the unconfirmed -to date- bits turn out eg Jones/Hannah etc. The 'dev squad' bit also appears to have been confirmed I see. lonniejockstrap
  • Score: 0

4:54pm Sat 12 May 12

Pablo says...

The majority of the players that Jackson signed were recommended by Archie Christie. The same Archie Christie whose virtues were extolled in the T&A by er...Julian Rhodes! You've contradicted yourself, once again, Julian. Those signings were Archie's.

Julian Rhodes doesn't go public very often, but when he does, he manages to put his foot in it.

Rhodes believes the two home games at the beginning of the season were some of the worst performances he'd ever seen. Well, he must have had his eyes closed for most of the season just gone. Did he not attend shambolic Saturday, when 17,000 turned up to the non-performance against subsequently relegated Hereford? On that day, stewards had to let people, who'd paid £1, out of the ground at half time, claiming they'd been short changed.

It's "jam tomorrow" again, according to Rhodes. Season ticket sales tell the real story. Even the most loyal fans look like they'll pick and choose their games next season and this isn't based on what they saw in the first two games, but the remaining twenty one.
The majority of the players that Jackson signed were recommended by Archie Christie. The same Archie Christie whose virtues were extolled in the T&A by er...Julian Rhodes! You've contradicted yourself, once again, Julian. Those signings were Archie's. Julian Rhodes doesn't go public very often, but when he does, he manages to put his foot in it. Rhodes believes the two home games at the beginning of the season were some of the worst performances he'd ever seen. Well, he must have had his eyes closed for most of the season just gone. Did he not attend shambolic Saturday, when 17,000 turned up to the non-performance against subsequently relegated Hereford? On that day, stewards had to let people, who'd paid £1, out of the ground at half time, claiming they'd been short changed. It's "jam tomorrow" again, according to Rhodes. Season ticket sales tell the real story. Even the most loyal fans look like they'll pick and choose their games next season and this isn't based on what they saw in the first two games, but the remaining twenty one. Pablo
  • Score: 0

4:56pm Sat 12 May 12

ricky76 says...

Onebrianmitchell wrote:
Let's just assess where we are at as of today. Below is a list of players who are retained and contracted or who have been offered contracts.

Syers
Oliver
Ramsden
Jonny Mac
Baker
Hanson
Hannah
Wells

Duke
Jones
Ravenhill
Reid

12 players broken down into to groups. One twice as big as the other.

Can anyone see why I've broken them into 2 groups?

Rather dispels the theory doesn't it?
Jones was here before PP came so should be in the larger group as for the other 3 they are the only players given longer contracts by PP when signed everyone else he brought him was for the short term.
[quote][p][bold]Onebrianmitchell[/bold] wrote: Let's just assess where we are at as of today. Below is a list of players who are retained and contracted or who have been offered contracts. Syers Oliver Ramsden Jonny Mac Baker Hanson Hannah Wells Duke Jones Ravenhill Reid 12 players broken down into to groups. One twice as big as the other. Can anyone see why I've broken them into 2 groups? Rather dispels the theory doesn't it?[/p][/quote]Jones was here before PP came so should be in the larger group as for the other 3 they are the only players given longer contracts by PP when signed everyone else he brought him was for the short term. ricky76
  • Score: 0

4:58pm Sat 12 May 12

Pablo says...

Onebrianmitchell wrote:
Let's just assess where we are at as of today. Below is a list of players who are retained and contracted or who have been offered contracts.

Syers
Oliver
Ramsden
Jonny Mac
Baker
Hanson
Hannah
Wells

Duke
Jones
Ravenhill
Reid

12 players broken down into to groups. One twice as big as the other.

Can anyone see why I've broken them into 2 groups?

Rather dispels the theory doesn't it?
brian, Jones was a Jackson/Archie Christie signing.
[quote][p][bold]Onebrianmitchell[/bold] wrote: Let's just assess where we are at as of today. Below is a list of players who are retained and contracted or who have been offered contracts. Syers Oliver Ramsden Jonny Mac Baker Hanson Hannah Wells Duke Jones Ravenhill Reid 12 players broken down into to groups. One twice as big as the other. Can anyone see why I've broken them into 2 groups? Rather dispels the theory doesn't it?[/p][/quote]brian, Jones was a Jackson/Archie Christie signing. Pablo
  • Score: 0

6:03pm Sat 12 May 12

joeybcfc says...

38 games to turn it around and still blaming Jacko these people need to take a long hard look in the mirror and they will see who is to blame.
38 games to turn it around and still blaming Jacko these people need to take a long hard look in the mirror and they will see who is to blame. joeybcfc
  • Score: 0

6:15pm Sat 12 May 12

arm grab man says...

have to totally disagree with Rhodes on this is he trying to tell us that all Parkinsons signings were better than Jackos
Mitchell best footballer at the club didn't fit into pp plans to lump it forward
Compton best winger we had all season
Stewart never given a fair chance remember Leeds game
Branston brought back by pp to help secure safety
also does Rhodes not remember the Leeds game and needs to take a long look at himself as he appointed another failed manager.
have to totally disagree with Rhodes on this is he trying to tell us that all Parkinsons signings were better than Jackos Mitchell best footballer at the club didn't fit into pp plans to lump it forward Compton best winger we had all season Stewart never given a fair chance remember Leeds game Branston brought back by pp to help secure safety also does Rhodes not remember the Leeds game and needs to take a long look at himself as he appointed another failed manager. arm grab man
  • Score: 0

7:02pm Sat 12 May 12

340stopper says...

arm grab man wrote:
have to totally disagree with Rhodes on this is he trying to tell us that all Parkinsons signings were better than Jackos Mitchell best footballer at the club didn't fit into pp plans to lump it forward Compton best winger we had all season Stewart never given a fair chance remember Leeds game Branston brought back by pp to help secure safety also does Rhodes not remember the Leeds game and needs to take a long look at himself as he appointed another failed manager.
I agree and the player i have most sympathy with is Branston who may not be a super star but when he came into the team after the Crawley game, we were just 4 points off the relegation zone and in real danger of going down (after all we would be loosing a lot of PP's first choice players owing to the red cards).
However after PP sub'd him at the Cheltenham game owing to a mistake which cost us a goal,we had reached safety 8 points above the drop zone with one match to go !
Talk about being used - he was.
Now we have JR "insisting BCFC have made strides with PP"and "our squad was worse than the season before when we only just survived" plus "disappointing campaign mainly down to the mistakes that PJ made in the transfer market this summer"
ML on 27/8 " We have not given up on this season and we owe a hugh debt of gratitude" !
followed by 29/8 "I think if we can get around the edge of the play of zone then i think that will be a good season for us" and even PP "there are some good players here with good quality that are starting to adapt to this level"
I would suggest the joint chairmen do not sing from the same hymn sheet.
I repeat my earlier post - FACTS
We won less matches at home, less matches away and ended up with two points less than the previous season.
Being positive however i am sure we will do better next season - if we don't ????
[quote][p][bold]arm grab man[/bold] wrote: have to totally disagree with Rhodes on this is he trying to tell us that all Parkinsons signings were better than Jackos Mitchell best footballer at the club didn't fit into pp plans to lump it forward Compton best winger we had all season Stewart never given a fair chance remember Leeds game Branston brought back by pp to help secure safety also does Rhodes not remember the Leeds game and needs to take a long look at himself as he appointed another failed manager.[/p][/quote]I agree and the player i have most sympathy with is Branston who may not be a super star but when he came into the team after the Crawley game, we were just 4 points off the relegation zone and in real danger of going down (after all we would be loosing a lot of PP's first choice players owing to the red cards). However after PP sub'd him at the Cheltenham game owing to a mistake which cost us a goal,we had reached safety 8 points above the drop zone with one match to go ! Talk about being used - he was. Now we have JR "insisting BCFC have made strides with PP"and "our squad was worse than the season before when we only just survived" plus "disappointing campaign mainly down to the mistakes that PJ made in the transfer market this summer" ML on 27/8 " We have not given up on this season and we owe a hugh debt of gratitude" ! followed by 29/8 "I think if we can get around the edge of the play of zone then i think that will be a good season for us" and even PP "there are some good players here with good quality that are starting to adapt to this level" I would suggest the joint chairmen do not sing from the same hymn sheet. I repeat my earlier post - FACTS We won less matches at home, less matches away and ended up with two points less than the previous season. Being positive however i am sure we will do better next season - if we don't ???? 340stopper
  • Score: 0

7:27pm Sat 12 May 12

mickyoi says...

arm grab man wrote:
have to totally disagree with Rhodes on this is he trying to tell us that all Parkinsons signings were better than Jackos
Mitchell best footballer at the club didn't fit into pp plans to lump it forward
Compton best winger we had all season
Stewart never given a fair chance remember Leeds game
Branston brought back by pp to help secure safety
also does Rhodes not remember the Leeds game and needs to take a long look at himself as he appointed another failed manager.
How many games did Stewart play and how many goals did he score? So Mitchell is better than Reid Oliver Davies ramsden wells Hanson syers jones and raven hill ? You absolute clown. From what I can gather from the drip fed info from VP is that all the dross has been dumped from the squad and the best players are staying or been offered a new contract. Let's see what signings PP makes this summer. My opinion is that we have played better football than under Taylor jackson and stuart. CTID
[quote][p][bold]arm grab man[/bold] wrote: have to totally disagree with Rhodes on this is he trying to tell us that all Parkinsons signings were better than Jackos Mitchell best footballer at the club didn't fit into pp plans to lump it forward Compton best winger we had all season Stewart never given a fair chance remember Leeds game Branston brought back by pp to help secure safety also does Rhodes not remember the Leeds game and needs to take a long look at himself as he appointed another failed manager.[/p][/quote]How many games did Stewart play and how many goals did he score? So Mitchell is better than Reid Oliver Davies ramsden wells Hanson syers jones and raven hill ? You absolute clown. From what I can gather from the drip fed info from VP is that all the dross has been dumped from the squad and the best players are staying or been offered a new contract. Let's see what signings PP makes this summer. My opinion is that we have played better football than under Taylor jackson and stuart. CTID mickyoi
  • Score: 0

7:40pm Sat 12 May 12

arm grab man says...

mickyoi wrote:
arm grab man wrote:
have to totally disagree with Rhodes on this is he trying to tell us that all Parkinsons signings were better than Jackos
Mitchell best footballer at the club didn't fit into pp plans to lump it forward
Compton best winger we had all season
Stewart never given a fair chance remember Leeds game
Branston brought back by pp to help secure safety
also does Rhodes not remember the Leeds game and needs to take a long look at himself as he appointed another failed manager.
How many games did Stewart play and how many goals did he score? So Mitchell is better than Reid Oliver Davies ramsden wells Hanson syers jones and raven hill ? You absolute clown. From what I can gather from the drip fed info from VP is that all the dross has been dumped from the squad and the best players are staying or been offered a new contract. Let's see what signings PP makes this summer. My opinion is that we have played better football than under Taylor jackson and stuart. CTID
how do you compare a creative midfielder to winger , centre back, a full back and centre forward and you call me a clown. also if you could read you'll see a comment about Stewart not getting enough chances and wasn't Jones signed by Jackson ? I know from a player that the general feeling amongst the players is that Jackos signings are not given a fair chance #fact
[quote][p][bold]mickyoi[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]arm grab man[/bold] wrote: have to totally disagree with Rhodes on this is he trying to tell us that all Parkinsons signings were better than Jackos Mitchell best footballer at the club didn't fit into pp plans to lump it forward Compton best winger we had all season Stewart never given a fair chance remember Leeds game Branston brought back by pp to help secure safety also does Rhodes not remember the Leeds game and needs to take a long look at himself as he appointed another failed manager.[/p][/quote]How many games did Stewart play and how many goals did he score? So Mitchell is better than Reid Oliver Davies ramsden wells Hanson syers jones and raven hill ? You absolute clown. From what I can gather from the drip fed info from VP is that all the dross has been dumped from the squad and the best players are staying or been offered a new contract. Let's see what signings PP makes this summer. My opinion is that we have played better football than under Taylor jackson and stuart. CTID[/p][/quote]how do you compare a creative midfielder to winger , centre back, a full back and centre forward and you call me a clown. also if you could read you'll see a comment about Stewart not getting enough chances and wasn't Jones signed by Jackson ? I know from a player that the general feeling amongst the players is that Jackos signings are not given a fair chance #fact arm grab man
  • Score: 0

7:42pm Sat 12 May 12

340stopper says...

mickyoi wrote:
arm grab man wrote: have to totally disagree with Rhodes on this is he trying to tell us that all Parkinsons signings were better than Jackos Mitchell best footballer at the club didn't fit into pp plans to lump it forward Compton best winger we had all season Stewart never given a fair chance remember Leeds game Branston brought back by pp to help secure safety also does Rhodes not remember the Leeds game and needs to take a long look at himself as he appointed another failed manager.
How many games did Stewart play and how many goals did he score? So Mitchell is better than Reid Oliver Davies ramsden wells Hanson syers jones and raven hill ? You absolute clown. From what I can gather from the drip fed info from VP is that all the dross has been dumped from the squad and the best players are staying or been offered a new contract. Let's see what signings PP makes this summer. My opinion is that we have played better football than under Taylor jackson and stuart. CTID
We may have in your opinion played better football than under Taylor Jackson and Stuart, however the facts are that this season we have continued to record less points than the previous season viz;
2011-2012 = 50 points
2010-2011 = 52 points
2009-2010 = 62 points
2008-2009 = 67 points
This trend HAS to be arrested this coming season or it is obvious we will be relegated from the football leaque.
[quote][p][bold]mickyoi[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]arm grab man[/bold] wrote: have to totally disagree with Rhodes on this is he trying to tell us that all Parkinsons signings were better than Jackos Mitchell best footballer at the club didn't fit into pp plans to lump it forward Compton best winger we had all season Stewart never given a fair chance remember Leeds game Branston brought back by pp to help secure safety also does Rhodes not remember the Leeds game and needs to take a long look at himself as he appointed another failed manager.[/p][/quote]How many games did Stewart play and how many goals did he score? So Mitchell is better than Reid Oliver Davies ramsden wells Hanson syers jones and raven hill ? You absolute clown. From what I can gather from the drip fed info from VP is that all the dross has been dumped from the squad and the best players are staying or been offered a new contract. Let's see what signings PP makes this summer. My opinion is that we have played better football than under Taylor jackson and stuart. CTID[/p][/quote]We may have in your opinion played better football than under Taylor Jackson and Stuart, however the facts are that this season we have continued to record less points than the previous season viz; 2011-2012 = 50 points 2010-2011 = 52 points 2009-2010 = 62 points 2008-2009 = 67 points This trend HAS to be arrested this coming season or it is obvious we will be relegated from the football leaque. 340stopper
  • Score: 0

8:20pm Sat 12 May 12

Onebrianmitchell says...

Pablo wrote:
Onebrianmitchell wrote:
Let's just assess where we are at as of today. Below is a list of players who are retained and contracted or who have been offered contracts.

Syers
Oliver
Ramsden
Jonny Mac
Baker
Hanson
Hannah
Wells

Duke
Jones
Ravenhill
Reid

12 players broken down into to groups. One twice as big as the other.

Can anyone see why I've broken them into 2 groups?

Rather dispels the theory doesn't it?
brian, Jones was a Jackson/Archie Christie signing.
Thank you. Proves the point further.
[quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Onebrianmitchell[/bold] wrote: Let's just assess where we are at as of today. Below is a list of players who are retained and contracted or who have been offered contracts. Syers Oliver Ramsden Jonny Mac Baker Hanson Hannah Wells Duke Jones Ravenhill Reid 12 players broken down into to groups. One twice as big as the other. Can anyone see why I've broken them into 2 groups? Rather dispels the theory doesn't it?[/p][/quote]brian, Jones was a Jackson/Archie Christie signing.[/p][/quote]Thank you. Proves the point further. Onebrianmitchell
  • Score: 0

8:22pm Sat 12 May 12

shaun from richmond says...

Pablo wrote:
The majority of the players that Jackson signed were recommended by Archie Christie. The same Archie Christie whose virtues were extolled in the T&A by er...Julian Rhodes! You've contradicted yourself, once again, Julian. Those signings were Archie's. Julian Rhodes doesn't go public very often, but when he does, he manages to put his foot in it. Rhodes believes the two home games at the beginning of the season were some of the worst performances he'd ever seen. Well, he must have had his eyes closed for most of the season just gone. Did he not attend shambolic Saturday, when 17,000 turned up to the non-performance against subsequently relegated Hereford? On that day, stewards had to let people, who'd paid £1, out of the ground at half time, claiming they'd been short changed. It's "jam tomorrow" again, according to Rhodes. Season ticket sales tell the real story. Even the most loyal fans look like they'll pick and choose their games next season and this isn't based on what they saw in the first two games, but the remaining twenty one.
JULIAN RHODES....Crawls out from under his rock!......And thinks, how on earth can I increase Season ticket sales????....I know...Lets blame "Jacko"!!!........Ci
ty fans are SO THICK they will go for it!!.
WE WILL SEE MR RHODES?!.
[quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: The majority of the players that Jackson signed were recommended by Archie Christie. The same Archie Christie whose virtues were extolled in the T&A by er...Julian Rhodes! You've contradicted yourself, once again, Julian. Those signings were Archie's. Julian Rhodes doesn't go public very often, but when he does, he manages to put his foot in it. Rhodes believes the two home games at the beginning of the season were some of the worst performances he'd ever seen. Well, he must have had his eyes closed for most of the season just gone. Did he not attend shambolic Saturday, when 17,000 turned up to the non-performance against subsequently relegated Hereford? On that day, stewards had to let people, who'd paid £1, out of the ground at half time, claiming they'd been short changed. It's "jam tomorrow" again, according to Rhodes. Season ticket sales tell the real story. Even the most loyal fans look like they'll pick and choose their games next season and this isn't based on what they saw in the first two games, but the remaining twenty one.[/p][/quote]JULIAN RHODES....Crawls out from under his rock!......And thinks, how on earth can I increase Season ticket sales????....I know...Lets blame "Jacko"!!!........Ci ty fans are SO THICK they will go for it!!. WE WILL SEE MR RHODES?!. shaun from richmond
  • Score: 0

9:22pm Sat 12 May 12

lonniejockstrap says...

The 'alarm bells were ringing' at the end of last season when Jacko was producing some of the worst performances I had seen for a few years and playing Syers at full-back and taking Hanson off and replacing him with Oliver at centre forward! However, PP had more than enough time, players -and money it appears- to more than make up for Jacko's 'failings'. I keep saying we need a manager who can coach players to improve their performance and the team performance. Unfortunately, practically every manager we set on seems to require a bucket load of money and a bus load of new players or they are 'excused' for not only failing to get us within a telescopes view of a play-off spot but in effect congratulated on doing a fine job of not getting us relegated. We wouldn't or certainly shouldn't have this situation being repeated every season if we stick with the manager instead of changing every season, partway through the season.
The 'alarm bells were ringing' at the end of last season when Jacko was producing some of the worst performances I had seen for a few years and playing Syers at full-back and taking Hanson off and replacing him with Oliver at centre forward! However, PP had more than enough time, players -and money it appears- to more than make up for Jacko's 'failings'. I keep saying we need a manager who can coach players to improve their performance and the team performance. Unfortunately, practically every manager we set on seems to require a bucket load of money and a bus load of new players or they are 'excused' for not only failing to get us within a telescopes view of a play-off spot but in effect congratulated on doing a fine job of not getting us relegated. We wouldn't or certainly shouldn't have this situation being repeated every season if we stick with the manager instead of changing every season, partway through the season. lonniejockstrap
  • Score: 0

7:40am Sun 13 May 12

eckybantam says...

this was parkinsons team not jackos pp had nearly all season rhodes talks crap only talks when the fatcontroller says he can pp has acheived nothing our home record shows how poor we were away ,pp did not improve things at all but jackos players certainly played there part .
this was parkinsons team not jackos pp had nearly all season rhodes talks crap only talks when the fatcontroller says he can pp has acheived nothing our home record shows how poor we were away ,pp did not improve things at all but jackos players certainly played there part . eckybantam
  • Score: 0

8:28am Sun 13 May 12

fatbloke says...

Having read the above comments with regards to Mitchell.

Something must have gone on with Mitchell we are not aware of. I recall a game way back when we scored 4 at home and won YES 4 GOALS AT HOME AND WE WON amazing isn't it!!

I am sure Mitchell got a hat-trick of assists...

Can not recall him playing much aftet that
Having read the above comments with regards to Mitchell. Something must have gone on with Mitchell we are not aware of. I recall a game way back when we scored 4 at home and won YES 4 GOALS AT HOME AND WE WON amazing isn't it!! I am sure Mitchell got a hat-trick of assists... Can not recall him playing much aftet that fatbloke
  • Score: 0

8:37am Sun 13 May 12

mickyoi says...

arm grab man wrote:
mickyoi wrote:
arm grab man wrote:
have to totally disagree with Rhodes on this is he trying to tell us that all Parkinsons signings were better than Jackos
Mitchell best footballer at the club didn't fit into pp plans to lump it forward
Compton best winger we had all season
Stewart never given a fair chance remember Leeds game
Branston brought back by pp to help secure safety
also does Rhodes not remember the Leeds game and needs to take a long look at himself as he appointed another failed manager.
How many games did Stewart play and how many goals did he score? So Mitchell is better than Reid Oliver Davies ramsden wells Hanson syers jones and raven hill ? You absolute clown. From what I can gather from the drip fed info from VP is that all the dross has been dumped from the squad and the best players are staying or been offered a new contract. Let's see what signings PP makes this summer. My opinion is that we have played better football than under Taylor jackson and stuart. CTID
how do you compare a creative midfielder to winger , centre back, a full back and centre forward and you call me a clown. also if you could read you'll see a comment about Stewart not getting enough chances and wasn't Jones signed by Jackson ? I know from a player that the general feeling amongst the players is that Jackos signings are not given a fair chance #fact
Hang on a sec, you said Mitchell was the best footballer at the club so I compared him to other footballers at the club who are better than him IMO! And yes I can read I asked you how many games Stewart played and how many goals he has scored but you failed to answer the question. I assume you know the answer but failed to post it due to the fact that the answer makes you're previous post look stupid. FACT is he had a chance and didn't take it which is why he is back in the worst league in the world. I rated Compton myself but he was offered a deal and turned it down end of. Also Reid is a better winger IMO If we are struggling at Christmas I will eat my words and apologise but until then I will back the manager and buy myself a season ticket. Oh and apologies for calling you a clown. Was out of order. CTID
[quote][p][bold]arm grab man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mickyoi[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]arm grab man[/bold] wrote: have to totally disagree with Rhodes on this is he trying to tell us that all Parkinsons signings were better than Jackos Mitchell best footballer at the club didn't fit into pp plans to lump it forward Compton best winger we had all season Stewart never given a fair chance remember Leeds game Branston brought back by pp to help secure safety also does Rhodes not remember the Leeds game and needs to take a long look at himself as he appointed another failed manager.[/p][/quote]How many games did Stewart play and how many goals did he score? So Mitchell is better than Reid Oliver Davies ramsden wells Hanson syers jones and raven hill ? You absolute clown. From what I can gather from the drip fed info from VP is that all the dross has been dumped from the squad and the best players are staying or been offered a new contract. Let's see what signings PP makes this summer. My opinion is that we have played better football than under Taylor jackson and stuart. CTID[/p][/quote]how do you compare a creative midfielder to winger , centre back, a full back and centre forward and you call me a clown. also if you could read you'll see a comment about Stewart not getting enough chances and wasn't Jones signed by Jackson ? I know from a player that the general feeling amongst the players is that Jackos signings are not given a fair chance #fact[/p][/quote]Hang on a sec, you said Mitchell was the best footballer at the club so I compared him to other footballers at the club who are better than him IMO! And yes I can read I asked you how many games Stewart played and how many goals he has scored but you failed to answer the question. I assume you know the answer but failed to post it due to the fact that the answer makes you're previous post look stupid. FACT is he had a chance and didn't take it which is why he is back in the worst league in the world. I rated Compton myself but he was offered a deal and turned it down end of. Also Reid is a better winger IMO If we are struggling at Christmas I will eat my words and apologise but until then I will back the manager and buy myself a season ticket. Oh and apologies for calling you a clown. Was out of order. CTID mickyoi
  • Score: 0

9:02am Sun 13 May 12

silverbantam says...

Let's remember what happened a year ago.

Lawn & Rhodes spent the summer trying to play hardball with Gibb over our rent by threatening to move to Odsal and failing spectacularly.

In the end they had to buy the shop & office block to reduce the rent. A shrewd move as they look to make an instant profit by selling the block to the new free school !!

Meanwhile with all this uncertainty they gave Jackson a low budget so all he could buy were mediocre players. They got Christie in to save money and spot some bargains but his judgement on senior players was poor. Stewart & Mitchell proving how poor Scottish football really is. They were both lightweight and not strong or consistent enough for league 2 football. But Jackson was given these players by Christie, so what chance did he have.

Rhodes is trying to deflect blame from him & Lawn by blaming Jackson.

Jackson was trying to manage club with both hands tied behind his back. No wonder he quit.
Let's remember what happened a year ago. Lawn & Rhodes spent the summer trying to play hardball with Gibb over our rent by threatening to move to Odsal and failing spectacularly. In the end they had to buy the shop & office block to reduce the rent. A shrewd move as they look to make an instant profit by selling the block to the new free school !! Meanwhile with all this uncertainty they gave Jackson a low budget so all he could buy were mediocre players. They got Christie in to save money and spot some bargains but his judgement on senior players was poor. Stewart & Mitchell proving how poor Scottish football really is. They were both lightweight and not strong or consistent enough for league 2 football. But Jackson was given these players by Christie, so what chance did he have. Rhodes is trying to deflect blame from him & Lawn by blaming Jackson. Jackson was trying to manage club with both hands tied behind his back. No wonder he quit. silverbantam
  • Score: 0

9:24am Sun 13 May 12

Freddy says...

I wholly apreciate the majority of the comments made above.
*
If you are a TRUE & GENUINE Supporter (Financially ) of Bradford City. Then the purchase of next Seasons Tickets is now a Top Priority.
*
If The Board and current Manager are to progress the club next season; Then contributing financially is needed NOW!.
*
With money from the Season Ticket sales NOW--will determine next seasons' playing/players achievements; Surely-that is what every true, & genuine supporter- desires?.
*
I wholly apreciate the majority of the comments made above. * If you are a TRUE & GENUINE Supporter (Financially ) of Bradford City. Then the purchase of next Seasons Tickets is now a Top Priority. * If The Board and current Manager are to progress the club next season; Then contributing financially is needed NOW!. * With money from the Season Ticket sales NOW--will determine next seasons' playing/players achievements; Surely-that is what every true, & genuine supporter- desires?. * Freddy
  • Score: 0

9:53am Sun 13 May 12

dannbradfc says...

My initial thoughts upon seeing the headline was SEASON TICKETS.

Rhodes has obviously been drinking from the same glass as Lawn.

One view of this is that he has to say these things to justify fans upset at last season renewing their tickets. Its taken Rhodes a long time to come out with this. Why didn't he support Lawns initial similar claims at the time and thus deflect some of the stick that Lawn got?

For everyone who has been crying out for a long term strategy for the club, well this is why its not happened.

Both chairman could see that after only 6 games that the squad were going to go down. Hardly an endoresement for a long term business plan is it?

I actually was prepared to give them more time. Indeed there were signs that the side were starting to gel but we'll actually never know. We only lost games by one goal under jackson and with just a couple of more players, one a central defender this may have been resolved. We certainly saw more attacking play under Jackson and more football imo.

Did we improve? the league position would suggest no compared to the season before. Both chairman are pretty good at blaming the previous managers for a variety of failures. These managers have no right to reply contractually wise. However both chairman forget that they chose to employ these managers in the first place. They set the criteria and budgets etc. they are also culpubable for any failings.....

As i say this as to be the party line due to poor season ticket sales thus far. Fans need convincing. Why would that be? Are we all wrong? We will now be offered 'tit-bit's' of potential signings and rumour, of which i'll pay attention when they actually sign a contract.

Most notably should be the fact that we were the 5th highests spenders and yet its to Parky's great credit that we managed to survive!! That must be down to the signings of Reed, Haworth, Atkinson, Smalley etc

At least Rhodes acknowledges that the loans were mainly useless. However these were the current managers choices and not Jacksons....hmmm.

VILLAGE BANTAM begins this headline with a good positive rallying call. However he spoils this by suggesting that some fans maybe looking foolish next year. By this logic does this mean he/she looks foolish now?
We ALL want to be cheering success but can only do this when its actuality. Why would this be foolish? Despite all the resorces we nearly went down so why would we be cheering the mangers name?

Those accused this season by others of been negative are in fact the positive one's in that they want us to progress and not accept mediocrity. To many pandoras box-types will accept everything untill its too late. I like ALL city fans will be cheering like crazy IF we achieve success next year and will have earned the right to do so. If however this isn't the case, how will you be feeling village bantam?

It
My initial thoughts upon seeing the headline was SEASON TICKETS. Rhodes has obviously been drinking from the same glass as Lawn. One view of this is that he has to say these things to justify fans upset at last season renewing their tickets. Its taken Rhodes a long time to come out with this. Why didn't he support Lawns initial similar claims at the time and thus deflect some of the stick that Lawn got? For everyone who has been crying out for a long term strategy for the club, well this is why its not happened. Both chairman could see that after only 6 games that the squad were going to go down. Hardly an endoresement for a long term business plan is it? I actually was prepared to give them more time. Indeed there were signs that the side were starting to gel but we'll actually never know. We only lost games by one goal under jackson and with just a couple of more players, one a central defender this may have been resolved. We certainly saw more attacking play under Jackson and more football imo. Did we improve? the league position would suggest no compared to the season before. Both chairman are pretty good at blaming the previous managers for a variety of failures. These managers have no right to reply contractually wise. However both chairman forget that they chose to employ these managers in the first place. They set the criteria and budgets etc. they are also culpubable for any failings..... As i say this as to be the party line due to poor season ticket sales thus far. Fans need convincing. Why would that be? Are we all wrong? We will now be offered 'tit-bit's' of potential signings and rumour, of which i'll pay attention when they actually sign a contract. Most notably should be the fact that we were the 5th highests spenders and yet its to Parky's great credit that we managed to survive!! That must be down to the signings of Reed, Haworth, Atkinson, Smalley etc At least Rhodes acknowledges that the loans were mainly useless. However these were the current managers choices and not Jacksons....hmmm. VILLAGE BANTAM begins this headline with a good positive rallying call. However he spoils this by suggesting that some fans maybe looking foolish next year. By this logic does this mean he/she looks foolish now? We ALL want to be cheering success but can only do this when its actuality. Why would this be foolish? Despite all the resorces we nearly went down so why would we be cheering the mangers name? Those accused this season by others of been negative are in fact the positive one's in that they want us to progress and not accept mediocrity. To many pandoras box-types will accept everything untill its too late. I like ALL city fans will be cheering like crazy IF we achieve success next year and will have earned the right to do so. If however this isn't the case, how will you be feeling village bantam? It dannbradfc
  • Score: 0

9:59am Sun 13 May 12

dannbradfc says...

dannbradfc wrote:
My initial thoughts upon seeing the headline was SEASON TICKETS.

Rhodes has obviously been drinking from the same glass as Lawn.

One view of this is that he has to say these things to justify fans upset at last season renewing their tickets. Its taken Rhodes a long time to come out with this. Why didn't he support Lawns initial similar claims at the time and thus deflect some of the stick that Lawn got?

For everyone who has been crying out for a long term strategy for the club, well this is why its not happened.

Both chairman could see that after only 6 games that the squad were going to go down. Hardly an endoresement for a long term business plan is it?

I actually was prepared to give them more time. Indeed there were signs that the side were starting to gel but we'll actually never know. We only lost games by one goal under jackson and with just a couple of more players, one a central defender this may have been resolved. We certainly saw more attacking play under Jackson and more football imo.

Did we improve? the league position would suggest no compared to the season before. Both chairman are pretty good at blaming the previous managers for a variety of failures. These managers have no right to reply contractually wise. However both chairman forget that they chose to employ these managers in the first place. They set the criteria and budgets etc. they are also culpubable for any failings.....

As i say this as to be the party line due to poor season ticket sales thus far. Fans need convincing. Why would that be? Are we all wrong? We will now be offered 'tit-bit's' of potential signings and rumour, of which i'll pay attention when they actually sign a contract.

Most notably should be the fact that we were the 5th highests spenders and yet its to Parky's great credit that we managed to survive!! That must be down to the signings of Reed, Haworth, Atkinson, Smalley etc

At least Rhodes acknowledges that the loans were mainly useless. However these were the current managers choices and not Jacksons....hmmm.

VILLAGE BANTAM begins this headline with a good positive rallying call. However he spoils this by suggesting that some fans maybe looking foolish next year. By this logic does this mean he/she looks foolish now?
We ALL want to be cheering success but can only do this when its actuality. Why would this be foolish? Despite all the resorces we nearly went down so why would we be cheering the mangers name?

Those accused this season by others of been negative are in fact the positive one's in that they want us to progress and not accept mediocrity. To many pandoras box-types will accept everything untill its too late. I like ALL city fans will be cheering like crazy IF we achieve success next year and will have earned the right to do so. If however this isn't the case, how will you be feeling village bantam?

It
ps had lawn and rhodes been together when city were 22nd in the league after 10 games before winning promotion to the prem would we have ever got promotion?
[quote][p][bold]dannbradfc[/bold] wrote: My initial thoughts upon seeing the headline was SEASON TICKETS. Rhodes has obviously been drinking from the same glass as Lawn. One view of this is that he has to say these things to justify fans upset at last season renewing their tickets. Its taken Rhodes a long time to come out with this. Why didn't he support Lawns initial similar claims at the time and thus deflect some of the stick that Lawn got? For everyone who has been crying out for a long term strategy for the club, well this is why its not happened. Both chairman could see that after only 6 games that the squad were going to go down. Hardly an endoresement for a long term business plan is it? I actually was prepared to give them more time. Indeed there were signs that the side were starting to gel but we'll actually never know. We only lost games by one goal under jackson and with just a couple of more players, one a central defender this may have been resolved. We certainly saw more attacking play under Jackson and more football imo. Did we improve? the league position would suggest no compared to the season before. Both chairman are pretty good at blaming the previous managers for a variety of failures. These managers have no right to reply contractually wise. However both chairman forget that they chose to employ these managers in the first place. They set the criteria and budgets etc. they are also culpubable for any failings..... As i say this as to be the party line due to poor season ticket sales thus far. Fans need convincing. Why would that be? Are we all wrong? We will now be offered 'tit-bit's' of potential signings and rumour, of which i'll pay attention when they actually sign a contract. Most notably should be the fact that we were the 5th highests spenders and yet its to Parky's great credit that we managed to survive!! That must be down to the signings of Reed, Haworth, Atkinson, Smalley etc At least Rhodes acknowledges that the loans were mainly useless. However these were the current managers choices and not Jacksons....hmmm. VILLAGE BANTAM begins this headline with a good positive rallying call. However he spoils this by suggesting that some fans maybe looking foolish next year. By this logic does this mean he/she looks foolish now? We ALL want to be cheering success but can only do this when its actuality. Why would this be foolish? Despite all the resorces we nearly went down so why would we be cheering the mangers name? Those accused this season by others of been negative are in fact the positive one's in that they want us to progress and not accept mediocrity. To many pandoras box-types will accept everything untill its too late. I like ALL city fans will be cheering like crazy IF we achieve success next year and will have earned the right to do so. If however this isn't the case, how will you be feeling village bantam? It[/p][/quote]ps had lawn and rhodes been together when city were 22nd in the league after 10 games before winning promotion to the prem would we have ever got promotion? dannbradfc
  • Score: 0

11:13am Sun 13 May 12

lonniejockstrap says...

dannbradfc wrote:
dannbradfc wrote:
My initial thoughts upon seeing the headline was SEASON TICKETS.

Rhodes has obviously been drinking from the same glass as Lawn.

One view of this is that he has to say these things to justify fans upset at last season renewing their tickets. Its taken Rhodes a long time to come out with this. Why didn't he support Lawns initial similar claims at the time and thus deflect some of the stick that Lawn got?

For everyone who has been crying out for a long term strategy for the club, well this is why its not happened.

Both chairman could see that after only 6 games that the squad were going to go down. Hardly an endoresement for a long term business plan is it?

I actually was prepared to give them more time. Indeed there were signs that the side were starting to gel but we'll actually never know. We only lost games by one goal under jackson and with just a couple of more players, one a central defender this may have been resolved. We certainly saw more attacking play under Jackson and more football imo.

Did we improve? the league position would suggest no compared to the season before. Both chairman are pretty good at blaming the previous managers for a variety of failures. These managers have no right to reply contractually wise. However both chairman forget that they chose to employ these managers in the first place. They set the criteria and budgets etc. they are also culpubable for any failings.....

As i say this as to be the party line due to poor season ticket sales thus far. Fans need convincing. Why would that be? Are we all wrong? We will now be offered 'tit-bit's' of potential signings and rumour, of which i'll pay attention when they actually sign a contract.

Most notably should be the fact that we were the 5th highests spenders and yet its to Parky's great credit that we managed to survive!! That must be down to the signings of Reed, Haworth, Atkinson, Smalley etc

At least Rhodes acknowledges that the loans were mainly useless. However these were the current managers choices and not Jacksons....hmmm.

VILLAGE BANTAM begins this headline with a good positive rallying call. However he spoils this by suggesting that some fans maybe looking foolish next year. By this logic does this mean he/she looks foolish now?
We ALL want to be cheering success but can only do this when its actuality. Why would this be foolish? Despite all the resorces we nearly went down so why would we be cheering the mangers name?

Those accused this season by others of been negative are in fact the positive one's in that they want us to progress and not accept mediocrity. To many pandoras box-types will accept everything untill its too late. I like ALL city fans will be cheering like crazy IF we achieve success next year and will have earned the right to do so. If however this isn't the case, how will you be feeling village bantam?

It
ps had lawn and rhodes been together when city were 22nd in the league after 10 games before winning promotion to the prem would we have ever got promotion?
If you are giving credit to Jacko for only losing games by the odd goal in his 5 games in charge then surely you will give the same credit to PP? Only 7 of his 47 games in charge resulted in defeats by more than 1 goal.

Two of those defeats were from teams in higher leagues one from league 1 and one from the championship.

Of the remaining 5 defeats of more than 2 goals, one was against Crawley away, one against Rotherham away who were only 3 points off a play-off spot -and were handed two goals on a plate from Jonny Mc's howlers. And one against Cheltenham away who were in a play-off spot and needed to win to ensure they stayed there.
[quote][p][bold]dannbradfc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dannbradfc[/bold] wrote: My initial thoughts upon seeing the headline was SEASON TICKETS. Rhodes has obviously been drinking from the same glass as Lawn. One view of this is that he has to say these things to justify fans upset at last season renewing their tickets. Its taken Rhodes a long time to come out with this. Why didn't he support Lawns initial similar claims at the time and thus deflect some of the stick that Lawn got? For everyone who has been crying out for a long term strategy for the club, well this is why its not happened. Both chairman could see that after only 6 games that the squad were going to go down. Hardly an endoresement for a long term business plan is it? I actually was prepared to give them more time. Indeed there were signs that the side were starting to gel but we'll actually never know. We only lost games by one goal under jackson and with just a couple of more players, one a central defender this may have been resolved. We certainly saw more attacking play under Jackson and more football imo. Did we improve? the league position would suggest no compared to the season before. Both chairman are pretty good at blaming the previous managers for a variety of failures. These managers have no right to reply contractually wise. However both chairman forget that they chose to employ these managers in the first place. They set the criteria and budgets etc. they are also culpubable for any failings..... As i say this as to be the party line due to poor season ticket sales thus far. Fans need convincing. Why would that be? Are we all wrong? We will now be offered 'tit-bit's' of potential signings and rumour, of which i'll pay attention when they actually sign a contract. Most notably should be the fact that we were the 5th highests spenders and yet its to Parky's great credit that we managed to survive!! That must be down to the signings of Reed, Haworth, Atkinson, Smalley etc At least Rhodes acknowledges that the loans were mainly useless. However these were the current managers choices and not Jacksons....hmmm. VILLAGE BANTAM begins this headline with a good positive rallying call. However he spoils this by suggesting that some fans maybe looking foolish next year. By this logic does this mean he/she looks foolish now? We ALL want to be cheering success but can only do this when its actuality. Why would this be foolish? Despite all the resorces we nearly went down so why would we be cheering the mangers name? Those accused this season by others of been negative are in fact the positive one's in that they want us to progress and not accept mediocrity. To many pandoras box-types will accept everything untill its too late. I like ALL city fans will be cheering like crazy IF we achieve success next year and will have earned the right to do so. If however this isn't the case, how will you be feeling village bantam? It[/p][/quote]ps had lawn and rhodes been together when city were 22nd in the league after 10 games before winning promotion to the prem would we have ever got promotion?[/p][/quote]If you are giving credit to Jacko for only losing games by the odd goal in his 5 games in charge then surely you will give the same credit to PP? Only 7 of his 47 games in charge resulted in defeats by more than 1 goal. Two of those defeats were from teams in higher leagues one from league 1 and one from the championship. Of the remaining 5 defeats of more than 2 goals, one was against Crawley away, one against Rotherham away who were only 3 points off a play-off spot -and were handed two goals on a plate from Jonny Mc's howlers. And one against Cheltenham away who were in a play-off spot and needed to win to ensure they stayed there. lonniejockstrap
  • Score: 0

12:29pm Sun 13 May 12

Nickloza says...

dannbradfc wrote:
dannbradfc wrote:
My initial thoughts upon seeing the headline was SEASON TICKETS.

Rhodes has obviously been drinking from the same glass as Lawn.

One view of this is that he has to say these things to justify fans upset at last season renewing their tickets. Its taken Rhodes a long time to come out with this. Why didn't he support Lawns initial similar claims at the time and thus deflect some of the stick that Lawn got?

For everyone who has been crying out for a long term strategy for the club, well this is why its not happened.

Both chairman could see that after only 6 games that the squad were going to go down. Hardly an endoresement for a long term business plan is it?

I actually was prepared to give them more time. Indeed there were signs that the side were starting to gel but we'll actually never know. We only lost games by one goal under jackson and with just a couple of more players, one a central defender this may have been resolved. We certainly saw more attacking play under Jackson and more football imo.

Did we improve? the league position would suggest no compared to the season before. Both chairman are pretty good at blaming the previous managers for a variety of failures. These managers have no right to reply contractually wise. However both chairman forget that they chose to employ these managers in the first place. They set the criteria and budgets etc. they are also culpubable for any failings.....

As i say this as to be the party line due to poor season ticket sales thus far. Fans need convincing. Why would that be? Are we all wrong? We will now be offered 'tit-bit's' of potential signings and rumour, of which i'll pay attention when they actually sign a contract.

Most notably should be the fact that we were the 5th highests spenders and yet its to Parky's great credit that we managed to survive!! That must be down to the signings of Reed, Haworth, Atkinson, Smalley etc

At least Rhodes acknowledges that the loans were mainly useless. However these were the current managers choices and not Jacksons....hmmm.

VILLAGE BANTAM begins this headline with a good positive rallying call. However he spoils this by suggesting that some fans maybe looking foolish next year. By this logic does this mean he/she looks foolish now?
We ALL want to be cheering success but can only do this when its actuality. Why would this be foolish? Despite all the resorces we nearly went down so why would we be cheering the mangers name?

Those accused this season by others of been negative are in fact the positive one's in that they want us to progress and not accept mediocrity. To many pandoras box-types will accept everything untill its too late. I like ALL city fans will be cheering like crazy IF we achieve success next year and will have earned the right to do so. If however this isn't the case, how will you be feeling village bantam?

It
ps had lawn and rhodes been together when city were 22nd in the league after 10 games before winning promotion to the prem would we have ever got promotion?
Whose money bankrolled City to get us in the prem? The Rhodes family!
[quote][p][bold]dannbradfc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dannbradfc[/bold] wrote: My initial thoughts upon seeing the headline was SEASON TICKETS. Rhodes has obviously been drinking from the same glass as Lawn. One view of this is that he has to say these things to justify fans upset at last season renewing their tickets. Its taken Rhodes a long time to come out with this. Why didn't he support Lawns initial similar claims at the time and thus deflect some of the stick that Lawn got? For everyone who has been crying out for a long term strategy for the club, well this is why its not happened. Both chairman could see that after only 6 games that the squad were going to go down. Hardly an endoresement for a long term business plan is it? I actually was prepared to give them more time. Indeed there were signs that the side were starting to gel but we'll actually never know. We only lost games by one goal under jackson and with just a couple of more players, one a central defender this may have been resolved. We certainly saw more attacking play under Jackson and more football imo. Did we improve? the league position would suggest no compared to the season before. Both chairman are pretty good at blaming the previous managers for a variety of failures. These managers have no right to reply contractually wise. However both chairman forget that they chose to employ these managers in the first place. They set the criteria and budgets etc. they are also culpubable for any failings..... As i say this as to be the party line due to poor season ticket sales thus far. Fans need convincing. Why would that be? Are we all wrong? We will now be offered 'tit-bit's' of potential signings and rumour, of which i'll pay attention when they actually sign a contract. Most notably should be the fact that we were the 5th highests spenders and yet its to Parky's great credit that we managed to survive!! That must be down to the signings of Reed, Haworth, Atkinson, Smalley etc At least Rhodes acknowledges that the loans were mainly useless. However these were the current managers choices and not Jacksons....hmmm. VILLAGE BANTAM begins this headline with a good positive rallying call. However he spoils this by suggesting that some fans maybe looking foolish next year. By this logic does this mean he/she looks foolish now? We ALL want to be cheering success but can only do this when its actuality. Why would this be foolish? Despite all the resorces we nearly went down so why would we be cheering the mangers name? Those accused this season by others of been negative are in fact the positive one's in that they want us to progress and not accept mediocrity. To many pandoras box-types will accept everything untill its too late. I like ALL city fans will be cheering like crazy IF we achieve success next year and will have earned the right to do so. If however this isn't the case, how will you be feeling village bantam? It[/p][/quote]ps had lawn and rhodes been together when city were 22nd in the league after 10 games before winning promotion to the prem would we have ever got promotion?[/p][/quote]Whose money bankrolled City to get us in the prem? The Rhodes family! Nickloza
  • Score: 0

12:30pm Sun 13 May 12

dannbradfc says...

lonniejockstrap wrote:
dannbradfc wrote:
dannbradfc wrote:
My initial thoughts upon seeing the headline was SEASON TICKETS.

Rhodes has obviously been drinking from the same glass as Lawn.

One view of this is that he has to say these things to justify fans upset at last season renewing their tickets. Its taken Rhodes a long time to come out with this. Why didn't he support Lawns initial similar claims at the time and thus deflect some of the stick that Lawn got?

For everyone who has been crying out for a long term strategy for the club, well this is why its not happened.

Both chairman could see that after only 6 games that the squad were going to go down. Hardly an endoresement for a long term business plan is it?

I actually was prepared to give them more time. Indeed there were signs that the side were starting to gel but we'll actually never know. We only lost games by one goal under jackson and with just a couple of more players, one a central defender this may have been resolved. We certainly saw more attacking play under Jackson and more football imo.

Did we improve? the league position would suggest no compared to the season before. Both chairman are pretty good at blaming the previous managers for a variety of failures. These managers have no right to reply contractually wise. However both chairman forget that they chose to employ these managers in the first place. They set the criteria and budgets etc. they are also culpubable for any failings.....

As i say this as to be the party line due to poor season ticket sales thus far. Fans need convincing. Why would that be? Are we all wrong? We will now be offered 'tit-bit's' of potential signings and rumour, of which i'll pay attention when they actually sign a contract.

Most notably should be the fact that we were the 5th highests spenders and yet its to Parky's great credit that we managed to survive!! That must be down to the signings of Reed, Haworth, Atkinson, Smalley etc

At least Rhodes acknowledges that the loans were mainly useless. However these were the current managers choices and not Jacksons....hmmm.

VILLAGE BANTAM begins this headline with a good positive rallying call. However he spoils this by suggesting that some fans maybe looking foolish next year. By this logic does this mean he/she looks foolish now?
We ALL want to be cheering success but can only do this when its actuality. Why would this be foolish? Despite all the resorces we nearly went down so why would we be cheering the mangers name?

Those accused this season by others of been negative are in fact the positive one's in that they want us to progress and not accept mediocrity. To many pandoras box-types will accept everything untill its too late. I like ALL city fans will be cheering like crazy IF we achieve success next year and will have earned the right to do so. If however this isn't the case, how will you be feeling village bantam?

It
ps had lawn and rhodes been together when city were 22nd in the league after 10 games before winning promotion to the prem would we have ever got promotion?
If you are giving credit to Jacko for only losing games by the odd goal in his 5 games in charge then surely you will give the same credit to PP? Only 7 of his 47 games in charge resulted in defeats by more than 1 goal.

Two of those defeats were from teams in higher leagues one from league 1 and one from the championship.

Of the remaining 5 defeats of more than 2 goals, one was against Crawley away, one against Rotherham away who were only 3 points off a play-off spot -and were handed two goals on a plate from Jonny Mc's howlers. And one against Cheltenham away who were in a play-off spot and needed to win to ensure they stayed there.
One day Lonnie you might highlight a section of a post that yo agree on. That would be a positive. Instead it appears you focus in on things written by other posters that you feel demonstrates your argument or you one you can argue with. Thats how it looks anyway and i apologise if that isn't the case. Indeed you yourself elsewhere question PP's record/form,but now feel the need to defend it.

The point you allude to was/is to point out the mis-representation by many on here that continually suggest that Jacksons team was getting 'hammered' this season. It wasn't. this was also part of a more attractive attempt to play football. Any manager can also attempt to shut-up shop and neglect the purpose of football i.e. to score more than the opposition in the hope of keeping the score down, sneaking a draw or even win.

The main point that you bypass is that i felt that the team was starting to settle. Indeed we were seeing in patches the attempt to play football on the floor.....your early disregard for Jackson goes against your usual stance of wanting time......and echoes those of our chairman, which thus far has proved unsuccesful.
[quote][p][bold]lonniejockstrap[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dannbradfc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dannbradfc[/bold] wrote: My initial thoughts upon seeing the headline was SEASON TICKETS. Rhodes has obviously been drinking from the same glass as Lawn. One view of this is that he has to say these things to justify fans upset at last season renewing their tickets. Its taken Rhodes a long time to come out with this. Why didn't he support Lawns initial similar claims at the time and thus deflect some of the stick that Lawn got? For everyone who has been crying out for a long term strategy for the club, well this is why its not happened. Both chairman could see that after only 6 games that the squad were going to go down. Hardly an endoresement for a long term business plan is it? I actually was prepared to give them more time. Indeed there were signs that the side were starting to gel but we'll actually never know. We only lost games by one goal under jackson and with just a couple of more players, one a central defender this may have been resolved. We certainly saw more attacking play under Jackson and more football imo. Did we improve? the league position would suggest no compared to the season before. Both chairman are pretty good at blaming the previous managers for a variety of failures. These managers have no right to reply contractually wise. However both chairman forget that they chose to employ these managers in the first place. They set the criteria and budgets etc. they are also culpubable for any failings..... As i say this as to be the party line due to poor season ticket sales thus far. Fans need convincing. Why would that be? Are we all wrong? We will now be offered 'tit-bit's' of potential signings and rumour, of which i'll pay attention when they actually sign a contract. Most notably should be the fact that we were the 5th highests spenders and yet its to Parky's great credit that we managed to survive!! That must be down to the signings of Reed, Haworth, Atkinson, Smalley etc At least Rhodes acknowledges that the loans were mainly useless. However these were the current managers choices and not Jacksons....hmmm. VILLAGE BANTAM begins this headline with a good positive rallying call. However he spoils this by suggesting that some fans maybe looking foolish next year. By this logic does this mean he/she looks foolish now? We ALL want to be cheering success but can only do this when its actuality. Why would this be foolish? Despite all the resorces we nearly went down so why would we be cheering the mangers name? Those accused this season by others of been negative are in fact the positive one's in that they want us to progress and not accept mediocrity. To many pandoras box-types will accept everything untill its too late. I like ALL city fans will be cheering like crazy IF we achieve success next year and will have earned the right to do so. If however this isn't the case, how will you be feeling village bantam? It[/p][/quote]ps had lawn and rhodes been together when city were 22nd in the league after 10 games before winning promotion to the prem would we have ever got promotion?[/p][/quote]If you are giving credit to Jacko for only losing games by the odd goal in his 5 games in charge then surely you will give the same credit to PP? Only 7 of his 47 games in charge resulted in defeats by more than 1 goal. Two of those defeats were from teams in higher leagues one from league 1 and one from the championship. Of the remaining 5 defeats of more than 2 goals, one was against Crawley away, one against Rotherham away who were only 3 points off a play-off spot -and were handed two goals on a plate from Jonny Mc's howlers. And one against Cheltenham away who were in a play-off spot and needed to win to ensure they stayed there.[/p][/quote]One day Lonnie you might highlight a section of a post that yo agree on. That would be a positive. Instead it appears you focus in on things written by other posters that you feel demonstrates your argument or you one you can argue with. Thats how it looks anyway and i apologise if that isn't the case. Indeed you yourself elsewhere question PP's record/form,but now feel the need to defend it. The point you allude to was/is to point out the mis-representation by many on here that continually suggest that Jacksons team was getting 'hammered' this season. It wasn't. this was also part of a more attractive attempt to play football. Any manager can also attempt to shut-up shop and neglect the purpose of football i.e. to score more than the opposition in the hope of keeping the score down, sneaking a draw or even win. The main point that you bypass is that i felt that the team was starting to settle. Indeed we were seeing in patches the attempt to play football on the floor.....your early disregard for Jackson goes against your usual stance of wanting time......and echoes those of our chairman, which thus far has proved unsuccesful. dannbradfc
  • Score: 0

12:33pm Sun 13 May 12

dannbradfc says...

Nickloza wrote:
dannbradfc wrote:
dannbradfc wrote:
My initial thoughts upon seeing the headline was SEASON TICKETS.

Rhodes has obviously been drinking from the same glass as Lawn.

One view of this is that he has to say these things to justify fans upset at last season renewing their tickets. Its taken Rhodes a long time to come out with this. Why didn't he support Lawns initial similar claims at the time and thus deflect some of the stick that Lawn got?

For everyone who has been crying out for a long term strategy for the club, well this is why its not happened.

Both chairman could see that after only 6 games that the squad were going to go down. Hardly an endoresement for a long term business plan is it?

I actually was prepared to give them more time. Indeed there were signs that the side were starting to gel but we'll actually never know. We only lost games by one goal under jackson and with just a couple of more players, one a central defender this may have been resolved. We certainly saw more attacking play under Jackson and more football imo.

Did we improve? the league position would suggest no compared to the season before. Both chairman are pretty good at blaming the previous managers for a variety of failures. These managers have no right to reply contractually wise. However both chairman forget that they chose to employ these managers in the first place. They set the criteria and budgets etc. they are also culpubable for any failings.....

As i say this as to be the party line due to poor season ticket sales thus far. Fans need convincing. Why would that be? Are we all wrong? We will now be offered 'tit-bit's' of potential signings and rumour, of which i'll pay attention when they actually sign a contract.

Most notably should be the fact that we were the 5th highests spenders and yet its to Parky's great credit that we managed to survive!! That must be down to the signings of Reed, Haworth, Atkinson, Smalley etc

At least Rhodes acknowledges that the loans were mainly useless. However these were the current managers choices and not Jacksons....hmmm.

VILLAGE BANTAM begins this headline with a good positive rallying call. However he spoils this by suggesting that some fans maybe looking foolish next year. By this logic does this mean he/she looks foolish now?
We ALL want to be cheering success but can only do this when its actuality. Why would this be foolish? Despite all the resorces we nearly went down so why would we be cheering the mangers name?

Those accused this season by others of been negative are in fact the positive one's in that they want us to progress and not accept mediocrity. To many pandoras box-types will accept everything untill its too late. I like ALL city fans will be cheering like crazy IF we achieve success next year and will have earned the right to do so. If however this isn't the case, how will you be feeling village bantam?

It
ps had lawn and rhodes been together when city were 22nd in the league after 10 games before winning promotion to the prem would we have ever got promotion?
Whose money bankrolled City to get us in the prem? The Rhodes family!
AND?

Richmond was chairman and i think you've missed the point in that Jewell was given the time and we didn't panic.....Lawn and Rhodes imo did this season.....
[quote][p][bold]Nickloza[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dannbradfc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dannbradfc[/bold] wrote: My initial thoughts upon seeing the headline was SEASON TICKETS. Rhodes has obviously been drinking from the same glass as Lawn. One view of this is that he has to say these things to justify fans upset at last season renewing their tickets. Its taken Rhodes a long time to come out with this. Why didn't he support Lawns initial similar claims at the time and thus deflect some of the stick that Lawn got? For everyone who has been crying out for a long term strategy for the club, well this is why its not happened. Both chairman could see that after only 6 games that the squad were going to go down. Hardly an endoresement for a long term business plan is it? I actually was prepared to give them more time. Indeed there were signs that the side were starting to gel but we'll actually never know. We only lost games by one goal under jackson and with just a couple of more players, one a central defender this may have been resolved. We certainly saw more attacking play under Jackson and more football imo. Did we improve? the league position would suggest no compared to the season before. Both chairman are pretty good at blaming the previous managers for a variety of failures. These managers have no right to reply contractually wise. However both chairman forget that they chose to employ these managers in the first place. They set the criteria and budgets etc. they are also culpubable for any failings..... As i say this as to be the party line due to poor season ticket sales thus far. Fans need convincing. Why would that be? Are we all wrong? We will now be offered 'tit-bit's' of potential signings and rumour, of which i'll pay attention when they actually sign a contract. Most notably should be the fact that we were the 5th highests spenders and yet its to Parky's great credit that we managed to survive!! That must be down to the signings of Reed, Haworth, Atkinson, Smalley etc At least Rhodes acknowledges that the loans were mainly useless. However these were the current managers choices and not Jacksons....hmmm. VILLAGE BANTAM begins this headline with a good positive rallying call. However he spoils this by suggesting that some fans maybe looking foolish next year. By this logic does this mean he/she looks foolish now? We ALL want to be cheering success but can only do this when its actuality. Why would this be foolish? Despite all the resorces we nearly went down so why would we be cheering the mangers name? Those accused this season by others of been negative are in fact the positive one's in that they want us to progress and not accept mediocrity. To many pandoras box-types will accept everything untill its too late. I like ALL city fans will be cheering like crazy IF we achieve success next year and will have earned the right to do so. If however this isn't the case, how will you be feeling village bantam? It[/p][/quote]ps had lawn and rhodes been together when city were 22nd in the league after 10 games before winning promotion to the prem would we have ever got promotion?[/p][/quote]Whose money bankrolled City to get us in the prem? The Rhodes family![/p][/quote]AND? Richmond was chairman and i think you've missed the point in that Jewell was given the time and we didn't panic.....Lawn and Rhodes imo did this season..... dannbradfc
  • Score: 0

12:43pm Sun 13 May 12

Nickloza says...

dannbradfc wrote:
Nickloza wrote:
dannbradfc wrote:
dannbradfc wrote:
My initial thoughts upon seeing the headline was SEASON TICKETS.

Rhodes has obviously been drinking from the same glass as Lawn.

One view of this is that he has to say these things to justify fans upset at last season renewing their tickets. Its taken Rhodes a long time to come out with this. Why didn't he support Lawns initial similar claims at the time and thus deflect some of the stick that Lawn got?

For everyone who has been crying out for a long term strategy for the club, well this is why its not happened.

Both chairman could see that after only 6 games that the squad were going to go down. Hardly an endoresement for a long term business plan is it?

I actually was prepared to give them more time. Indeed there were signs that the side were starting to gel but we'll actually never know. We only lost games by one goal under jackson and with just a couple of more players, one a central defender this may have been resolved. We certainly saw more attacking play under Jackson and more football imo.

Did we improve? the league position would suggest no compared to the season before. Both chairman are pretty good at blaming the previous managers for a variety of failures. These managers have no right to reply contractually wise. However both chairman forget that they chose to employ these managers in the first place. They set the criteria and budgets etc. they are also culpubable for any failings.....

As i say this as to be the party line due to poor season ticket sales thus far. Fans need convincing. Why would that be? Are we all wrong? We will now be offered 'tit-bit's' of potential signings and rumour, of which i'll pay attention when they actually sign a contract.

Most notably should be the fact that we were the 5th highests spenders and yet its to Parky's great credit that we managed to survive!! That must be down to the signings of Reed, Haworth, Atkinson, Smalley etc

At least Rhodes acknowledges that the loans were mainly useless. However these were the current managers choices and not Jacksons....hmmm.

VILLAGE BANTAM begins this headline with a good positive rallying call. However he spoils this by suggesting that some fans maybe looking foolish next year. By this logic does this mean he/she looks foolish now?
We ALL want to be cheering success but can only do this when its actuality. Why would this be foolish? Despite all the resorces we nearly went down so why would we be cheering the mangers name?

Those accused this season by others of been negative are in fact the positive one's in that they want us to progress and not accept mediocrity. To many pandoras box-types will accept everything untill its too late. I like ALL city fans will be cheering like crazy IF we achieve success next year and will have earned the right to do so. If however this isn't the case, how will you be feeling village bantam?

It
ps had lawn and rhodes been together when city were 22nd in the league after 10 games before winning promotion to the prem would we have ever got promotion?
Whose money bankrolled City to get us in the prem? The Rhodes family!
AND?

Richmond was chairman and i think you've missed the point in that Jewell was given the time and we didn't panic.....Lawn and Rhodes imo did this season.....
So your saying they just simply put millions in and didn't have a say? Don't talk silly! I haven't missed any point It was a ridiculous post,
[quote][p][bold]dannbradfc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nickloza[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dannbradfc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dannbradfc[/bold] wrote: My initial thoughts upon seeing the headline was SEASON TICKETS. Rhodes has obviously been drinking from the same glass as Lawn. One view of this is that he has to say these things to justify fans upset at last season renewing their tickets. Its taken Rhodes a long time to come out with this. Why didn't he support Lawns initial similar claims at the time and thus deflect some of the stick that Lawn got? For everyone who has been crying out for a long term strategy for the club, well this is why its not happened. Both chairman could see that after only 6 games that the squad were going to go down. Hardly an endoresement for a long term business plan is it? I actually was prepared to give them more time. Indeed there were signs that the side were starting to gel but we'll actually never know. We only lost games by one goal under jackson and with just a couple of more players, one a central defender this may have been resolved. We certainly saw more attacking play under Jackson and more football imo. Did we improve? the league position would suggest no compared to the season before. Both chairman are pretty good at blaming the previous managers for a variety of failures. These managers have no right to reply contractually wise. However both chairman forget that they chose to employ these managers in the first place. They set the criteria and budgets etc. they are also culpubable for any failings..... As i say this as to be the party line due to poor season ticket sales thus far. Fans need convincing. Why would that be? Are we all wrong? We will now be offered 'tit-bit's' of potential signings and rumour, of which i'll pay attention when they actually sign a contract. Most notably should be the fact that we were the 5th highests spenders and yet its to Parky's great credit that we managed to survive!! That must be down to the signings of Reed, Haworth, Atkinson, Smalley etc At least Rhodes acknowledges that the loans were mainly useless. However these were the current managers choices and not Jacksons....hmmm. VILLAGE BANTAM begins this headline with a good positive rallying call. However he spoils this by suggesting that some fans maybe looking foolish next year. By this logic does this mean he/she looks foolish now? We ALL want to be cheering success but can only do this when its actuality. Why would this be foolish? Despite all the resorces we nearly went down so why would we be cheering the mangers name? Those accused this season by others of been negative are in fact the positive one's in that they want us to progress and not accept mediocrity. To many pandoras box-types will accept everything untill its too late. I like ALL city fans will be cheering like crazy IF we achieve success next year and will have earned the right to do so. If however this isn't the case, how will you be feeling village bantam? It[/p][/quote]ps had lawn and rhodes been together when city were 22nd in the league after 10 games before winning promotion to the prem would we have ever got promotion?[/p][/quote]Whose money bankrolled City to get us in the prem? The Rhodes family![/p][/quote]AND? Richmond was chairman and i think you've missed the point in that Jewell was given the time and we didn't panic.....Lawn and Rhodes imo did this season.....[/p][/quote]So your saying they just simply put millions in and didn't have a say? Don't talk silly! I haven't missed any point It was a ridiculous post, Nickloza
  • Score: 0

1:01pm Sun 13 May 12

dannbradfc says...

Nickloza wrote:
dannbradfc wrote:
Nickloza wrote:
dannbradfc wrote:
dannbradfc wrote:
My initial thoughts upon seeing the headline was SEASON TICKETS.

Rhodes has obviously been drinking from the same glass as Lawn.

One view of this is that he has to say these things to justify fans upset at last season renewing their tickets. Its taken Rhodes a long time to come out with this. Why didn't he support Lawns initial similar claims at the time and thus deflect some of the stick that Lawn got?

For everyone who has been crying out for a long term strategy for the club, well this is why its not happened.

Both chairman could see that after only 6 games that the squad were going to go down. Hardly an endoresement for a long term business plan is it?

I actually was prepared to give them more time. Indeed there were signs that the side were starting to gel but we'll actually never know. We only lost games by one goal under jackson and with just a couple of more players, one a central defender this may have been resolved. We certainly saw more attacking play under Jackson and more football imo.

Did we improve? the league position would suggest no compared to the season before. Both chairman are pretty good at blaming the previous managers for a variety of failures. These managers have no right to reply contractually wise. However both chairman forget that they chose to employ these managers in the first place. They set the criteria and budgets etc. they are also culpubable for any failings.....

As i say this as to be the party line due to poor season ticket sales thus far. Fans need convincing. Why would that be? Are we all wrong? We will now be offered 'tit-bit's' of potential signings and rumour, of which i'll pay attention when they actually sign a contract.

Most notably should be the fact that we were the 5th highests spenders and yet its to Parky's great credit that we managed to survive!! That must be down to the signings of Reed, Haworth, Atkinson, Smalley etc

At least Rhodes acknowledges that the loans were mainly useless. However these were the current managers choices and not Jacksons....hmmm.

VILLAGE BANTAM begins this headline with a good positive rallying call. However he spoils this by suggesting that some fans maybe looking foolish next year. By this logic does this mean he/she looks foolish now?
We ALL want to be cheering success but can only do this when its actuality. Why would this be foolish? Despite all the resorces we nearly went down so why would we be cheering the mangers name?

Those accused this season by others of been negative are in fact the positive one's in that they want us to progress and not accept mediocrity. To many pandoras box-types will accept everything untill its too late. I like ALL city fans will be cheering like crazy IF we achieve success next year and will have earned the right to do so. If however this isn't the case, how will you be feeling village bantam?

It
ps had lawn and rhodes been together when city were 22nd in the league after 10 games before winning promotion to the prem would we have ever got promotion?
Whose money bankrolled City to get us in the prem? The Rhodes family!
AND?

Richmond was chairman and i think you've missed the point in that Jewell was given the time and we didn't panic.....Lawn and Rhodes imo did this season.....
So your saying they just simply put millions in and didn't have a say? Don't talk silly! I haven't missed any point It was a ridiculous post,
even on a 2nd opportunity to review you have missed the point again.

the point was that after 10 games with jewell in charge we were 22nd in the league but went up.

after less games this season Jackson's squad was deemed to be not good enough by the chairman resulting in spending more resources and a struggling season. Just perhaps they could have offered more time for the team to gel?

indeed the original post doesn't question rhodes committment (wasn't it his fathers money as well?) or involvement in the promotion season, only the current season. Indeed it actually questions the current joint chairmanships judgement......

hope you get it this time it would be ridiculous if you failed a third time ;-).....
[quote][p][bold]Nickloza[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dannbradfc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nickloza[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dannbradfc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dannbradfc[/bold] wrote: My initial thoughts upon seeing the headline was SEASON TICKETS. Rhodes has obviously been drinking from the same glass as Lawn. One view of this is that he has to say these things to justify fans upset at last season renewing their tickets. Its taken Rhodes a long time to come out with this. Why didn't he support Lawns initial similar claims at the time and thus deflect some of the stick that Lawn got? For everyone who has been crying out for a long term strategy for the club, well this is why its not happened. Both chairman could see that after only 6 games that the squad were going to go down. Hardly an endoresement for a long term business plan is it? I actually was prepared to give them more time. Indeed there were signs that the side were starting to gel but we'll actually never know. We only lost games by one goal under jackson and with just a couple of more players, one a central defender this may have been resolved. We certainly saw more attacking play under Jackson and more football imo. Did we improve? the league position would suggest no compared to the season before. Both chairman are pretty good at blaming the previous managers for a variety of failures. These managers have no right to reply contractually wise. However both chairman forget that they chose to employ these managers in the first place. They set the criteria and budgets etc. they are also culpubable for any failings..... As i say this as to be the party line due to poor season ticket sales thus far. Fans need convincing. Why would that be? Are we all wrong? We will now be offered 'tit-bit's' of potential signings and rumour, of which i'll pay attention when they actually sign a contract. Most notably should be the fact that we were the 5th highests spenders and yet its to Parky's great credit that we managed to survive!! That must be down to the signings of Reed, Haworth, Atkinson, Smalley etc At least Rhodes acknowledges that the loans were mainly useless. However these were the current managers choices and not Jacksons....hmmm. VILLAGE BANTAM begins this headline with a good positive rallying call. However he spoils this by suggesting that some fans maybe looking foolish next year. By this logic does this mean he/she looks foolish now? We ALL want to be cheering success but can only do this when its actuality. Why would this be foolish? Despite all the resorces we nearly went down so why would we be cheering the mangers name? Those accused this season by others of been negative are in fact the positive one's in that they want us to progress and not accept mediocrity. To many pandoras box-types will accept everything untill its too late. I like ALL city fans will be cheering like crazy IF we achieve success next year and will have earned the right to do so. If however this isn't the case, how will you be feeling village bantam? It[/p][/quote]ps had lawn and rhodes been together when city were 22nd in the league after 10 games before winning promotion to the prem would we have ever got promotion?[/p][/quote]Whose money bankrolled City to get us in the prem? The Rhodes family![/p][/quote]AND? Richmond was chairman and i think you've missed the point in that Jewell was given the time and we didn't panic.....Lawn and Rhodes imo did this season.....[/p][/quote]So your saying they just simply put millions in and didn't have a say? Don't talk silly! I haven't missed any point It was a ridiculous post,[/p][/quote]even on a 2nd opportunity to review you have missed the point again. the point was that after 10 games with jewell in charge we were 22nd in the league but went up. after less games this season Jackson's squad was deemed to be not good enough by the chairman resulting in spending more resources and a struggling season. Just perhaps they could have offered more time for the team to gel? indeed the original post doesn't question rhodes committment (wasn't it his fathers money as well?) or involvement in the promotion season, only the current season. Indeed it actually questions the current joint chairmanships judgement...... hope you get it this time it would be ridiculous if you failed a third time ;-)..... dannbradfc
  • Score: 0

1:09pm Sun 13 May 12

Nickloza says...

dannbradfc wrote:
Nickloza wrote:
dannbradfc wrote:
Nickloza wrote:
dannbradfc wrote:
dannbradfc wrote:
My initial thoughts upon seeing the headline was SEASON TICKETS.

Rhodes has obviously been drinking from the same glass as Lawn.

One view of this is that he has to say these things to justify fans upset at last season renewing their tickets. Its taken Rhodes a long time to come out with this. Why didn't he support Lawns initial similar claims at the time and thus deflect some of the stick that Lawn got?

For everyone who has been crying out for a long term strategy for the club, well this is why its not happened.

Both chairman could see that after only 6 games that the squad were going to go down. Hardly an endoresement for a long term business plan is it?

I actually was prepared to give them more time. Indeed there were signs that the side were starting to gel but we'll actually never know. We only lost games by one goal under jackson and with just a couple of more players, one a central defender this may have been resolved. We certainly saw more attacking play under Jackson and more football imo.

Did we improve? the league position would suggest no compared to the season before. Both chairman are pretty good at blaming the previous managers for a variety of failures. These managers have no right to reply contractually wise. However both chairman forget that they chose to employ these managers in the first place. They set the criteria and budgets etc. they are also culpubable for any failings.....

As i say this as to be the party line due to poor season ticket sales thus far. Fans need convincing. Why would that be? Are we all wrong? We will now be offered 'tit-bit's' of potential signings and rumour, of which i'll pay attention when they actually sign a contract.

Most notably should be the fact that we were the 5th highests spenders and yet its to Parky's great credit that we managed to survive!! That must be down to the signings of Reed, Haworth, Atkinson, Smalley etc

At least Rhodes acknowledges that the loans were mainly useless. However these were the current managers choices and not Jacksons....hmmm.

VILLAGE BANTAM begins this headline with a good positive rallying call. However he spoils this by suggesting that some fans maybe looking foolish next year. By this logic does this mean he/she looks foolish now?
We ALL want to be cheering success but can only do this when its actuality. Why would this be foolish? Despite all the resorces we nearly went down so why would we be cheering the mangers name?

Those accused this season by others of been negative are in fact the positive one's in that they want us to progress and not accept mediocrity. To many pandoras box-types will accept everything untill its too late. I like ALL city fans will be cheering like crazy IF we achieve success next year and will have earned the right to do so. If however this isn't the case, how will you be feeling village bantam?

It
ps had lawn and rhodes been together when city were 22nd in the league after 10 games before winning promotion to the prem would we have ever got promotion?
Whose money bankrolled City to get us in the prem? The Rhodes family!
AND?

Richmond was chairman and i think you've missed the point in that Jewell was given the time and we didn't panic.....Lawn and Rhodes imo did this season.....
So your saying they just simply put millions in and didn't have a say? Don't talk silly! I haven't missed any point It was a ridiculous post,
even on a 2nd opportunity to review you have missed the point again.

the point was that after 10 games with jewell in charge we were 22nd in the league but went up.

after less games this season Jackson's squad was deemed to be not good enough by the chairman resulting in spending more resources and a struggling season. Just perhaps they could have offered more time for the team to gel?

indeed the original post doesn't question rhodes committment (wasn't it his fathers money as well?) or involvement in the promotion season, only the current season. Indeed it actually questions the current joint chairmanships judgement......

hope you get it this time it would be ridiculous if you failed a third time ;-).....
You asked would we still have gone up now who's not reading I put the Rhodes family. They did back Jewell I suggest you read the following link http://www.bantamspa
st.co.uk/premiership
/premiership.html
[quote][p][bold]dannbradfc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nickloza[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dannbradfc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nickloza[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dannbradfc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dannbradfc[/bold] wrote: My initial thoughts upon seeing the headline was SEASON TICKETS. Rhodes has obviously been drinking from the same glass as Lawn. One view of this is that he has to say these things to justify fans upset at last season renewing their tickets. Its taken Rhodes a long time to come out with this. Why didn't he support Lawns initial similar claims at the time and thus deflect some of the stick that Lawn got? For everyone who has been crying out for a long term strategy for the club, well this is why its not happened. Both chairman could see that after only 6 games that the squad were going to go down. Hardly an endoresement for a long term business plan is it? I actually was prepared to give them more time. Indeed there were signs that the side were starting to gel but we'll actually never know. We only lost games by one goal under jackson and with just a couple of more players, one a central defender this may have been resolved. We certainly saw more attacking play under Jackson and more football imo. Did we improve? the league position would suggest no compared to the season before. Both chairman are pretty good at blaming the previous managers for a variety of failures. These managers have no right to reply contractually wise. However both chairman forget that they chose to employ these managers in the first place. They set the criteria and budgets etc. they are also culpubable for any failings..... As i say this as to be the party line due to poor season ticket sales thus far. Fans need convincing. Why would that be? Are we all wrong? We will now be offered 'tit-bit's' of potential signings and rumour, of which i'll pay attention when they actually sign a contract. Most notably should be the fact that we were the 5th highests spenders and yet its to Parky's great credit that we managed to survive!! That must be down to the signings of Reed, Haworth, Atkinson, Smalley etc At least Rhodes acknowledges that the loans were mainly useless. However these were the current managers choices and not Jacksons....hmmm. VILLAGE BANTAM begins this headline with a good positive rallying call. However he spoils this by suggesting that some fans maybe looking foolish next year. By this logic does this mean he/she looks foolish now? We ALL want to be cheering success but can only do this when its actuality. Why would this be foolish? Despite all the resorces we nearly went down so why would we be cheering the mangers name? Those accused this season by others of been negative are in fact the positive one's in that they want us to progress and not accept mediocrity. To many pandoras box-types will accept everything untill its too late. I like ALL city fans will be cheering like crazy IF we achieve success next year and will have earned the right to do so. If however this isn't the case, how will you be feeling village bantam? It[/p][/quote]ps had lawn and rhodes been together when city were 22nd in the league after 10 games before winning promotion to the prem would we have ever got promotion?[/p][/quote]Whose money bankrolled City to get us in the prem? The Rhodes family![/p][/quote]AND? Richmond was chairman and i think you've missed the point in that Jewell was given the time and we didn't panic.....Lawn and Rhodes imo did this season.....[/p][/quote]So your saying they just simply put millions in and didn't have a say? Don't talk silly! I haven't missed any point It was a ridiculous post,[/p][/quote]even on a 2nd opportunity to review you have missed the point again. the point was that after 10 games with jewell in charge we were 22nd in the league but went up. after less games this season Jackson's squad was deemed to be not good enough by the chairman resulting in spending more resources and a struggling season. Just perhaps they could have offered more time for the team to gel? indeed the original post doesn't question rhodes committment (wasn't it his fathers money as well?) or involvement in the promotion season, only the current season. Indeed it actually questions the current joint chairmanships judgement...... hope you get it this time it would be ridiculous if you failed a third time ;-).....[/p][/quote]You asked would we still have gone up now who's not reading I put the Rhodes family. They did back Jewell I suggest you read the following link http://www.bantamspa st.co.uk/premiership /premiership.html Nickloza
  • Score: 0

1:14pm Sun 13 May 12

lonniejockstrap says...

dannbradfc wrote:
lonniejockstrap wrote:
dannbradfc wrote:
dannbradfc wrote:
My initial thoughts upon seeing the headline was SEASON TICKETS.

Rhodes has obviously been drinking from the same glass as Lawn.

One view of this is that he has to say these things to justify fans upset at last season renewing their tickets. Its taken Rhodes a long time to come out with this. Why didn't he support Lawns initial similar claims at the time and thus deflect some of the stick that Lawn got?

For everyone who has been crying out for a long term strategy for the club, well this is why its not happened.

Both chairman could see that after only 6 games that the squad were going to go down. Hardly an endoresement for a long term business plan is it?

I actually was prepared to give them more time. Indeed there were signs that the side were starting to gel but we'll actually never know. We only lost games by one goal under jackson and with just a couple of more players, one a central defender this may have been resolved. We certainly saw more attacking play under Jackson and more football imo.

Did we improve? the league position would suggest no compared to the season before. Both chairman are pretty good at blaming the previous managers for a variety of failures. These managers have no right to reply contractually wise. However both chairman forget that they chose to employ these managers in the first place. They set the criteria and budgets etc. they are also culpubable for any failings.....

As i say this as to be the party line due to poor season ticket sales thus far. Fans need convincing. Why would that be? Are we all wrong? We will now be offered 'tit-bit's' of potential signings and rumour, of which i'll pay attention when they actually sign a contract.

Most notably should be the fact that we were the 5th highests spenders and yet its to Parky's great credit that we managed to survive!! That must be down to the signings of Reed, Haworth, Atkinson, Smalley etc

At least Rhodes acknowledges that the loans were mainly useless. However these were the current managers choices and not Jacksons....hmmm.

VILLAGE BANTAM begins this headline with a good positive rallying call. However he spoils this by suggesting that some fans maybe looking foolish next year. By this logic does this mean he/she looks foolish now?
We ALL want to be cheering success but can only do this when its actuality. Why would this be foolish? Despite all the resorces we nearly went down so why would we be cheering the mangers name?

Those accused this season by others of been negative are in fact the positive one's in that they want us to progress and not accept mediocrity. To many pandoras box-types will accept everything untill its too late. I like ALL city fans will be cheering like crazy IF we achieve success next year and will have earned the right to do so. If however this isn't the case, how will you be feeling village bantam?

It
ps had lawn and rhodes been together when city were 22nd in the league after 10 games before winning promotion to the prem would we have ever got promotion?
If you are giving credit to Jacko for only losing games by the odd goal in his 5 games in charge then surely you will give the same credit to PP? Only 7 of his 47 games in charge resulted in defeats by more than 1 goal.

Two of those defeats were from teams in higher leagues one from league 1 and one from the championship.

Of the remaining 5 defeats of more than 2 goals, one was against Crawley away, one against Rotherham away who were only 3 points off a play-off spot -and were handed two goals on a plate from Jonny Mc's howlers. And one against Cheltenham away who were in a play-off spot and needed to win to ensure they stayed there.
One day Lonnie you might highlight a section of a post that yo agree on. That would be a positive. Instead it appears you focus in on things written by other posters that you feel demonstrates your argument or you one you can argue with. Thats how it looks anyway and i apologise if that isn't the case. Indeed you yourself elsewhere question PP's record/form,but now feel the need to defend it.

The point you allude to was/is to point out the mis-representation by many on here that continually suggest that Jacksons team was getting 'hammered' this season. It wasn't. this was also part of a more attractive attempt to play football. Any manager can also attempt to shut-up shop and neglect the purpose of football i.e. to score more than the opposition in the hope of keeping the score down, sneaking a draw or even win.

The main point that you bypass is that i felt that the team was starting to settle. Indeed we were seeing in patches the attempt to play football on the floor.....your early disregard for Jackson goes against your usual stance of wanting time......and echoes those of our chairman, which thus far has proved unsuccesful.
Sorry to have to pick bits that I disagree with in your post dann but you know what a stickler I am for accuracy.

1 I often make a comment whereby I agree with what other posters have said. That's a fact dann, just go back to: 'lonniejockstrap says...
4:39pm Sat 12 May 12' on this very same article as an example.

2 I was are, and will remain in support of the need to keep managers for a period of years rather than months. So, regardless of how you wish to interpret my criticisms of Jacko's period of management I would have wished him to stay for a lot longer than he did in order to be in with a chance of developing his ideas and his team. I have also criticised Stuart's, Taylor's and as you correctly point out, PP's methods. How I can convince you that there is a world of difference between my making constructive -on the whole- criticism/comment and wanting a manager sacked is something I am obviously struggling to get across. Can you -once again purely out of the interest of accuracy- provide a quote from me ever saying that I wanted Jacko sacked or that he shouldn't be given time? I was not impressed with his time as 'interim manager' and didn't think his performance justified him getting the job when he effectively jumped the queue of the interviewee's.

In fact, the opposite WAS the case. I felt extremely annoyed and let-down that he made so many changes to the 'foundations' of the Club and Team only to resign and leave what he had as his vision to somebody else to have to work with after such a short but not insignificant period in charge as regards budgets, organisation, personnel changes etc were concerned.
[quote][p][bold]dannbradfc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lonniejockstrap[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dannbradfc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dannbradfc[/bold] wrote: My initial thoughts upon seeing the headline was SEASON TICKETS. Rhodes has obviously been drinking from the same glass as Lawn. One view of this is that he has to say these things to justify fans upset at last season renewing their tickets. Its taken Rhodes a long time to come out with this. Why didn't he support Lawns initial similar claims at the time and thus deflect some of the stick that Lawn got? For everyone who has been crying out for a long term strategy for the club, well this is why its not happened. Both chairman could see that after only 6 games that the squad were going to go down. Hardly an endoresement for a long term business plan is it? I actually was prepared to give them more time. Indeed there were signs that the side were starting to gel but we'll actually never know. We only lost games by one goal under jackson and with just a couple of more players, one a central defender this may have been resolved. We certainly saw more attacking play under Jackson and more football imo. Did we improve? the league position would suggest no compared to the season before. Both chairman are pretty good at blaming the previous managers for a variety of failures. These managers have no right to reply contractually wise. However both chairman forget that they chose to employ these managers in the first place. They set the criteria and budgets etc. they are also culpubable for any failings..... As i say this as to be the party line due to poor season ticket sales thus far. Fans need convincing. Why would that be? Are we all wrong? We will now be offered 'tit-bit's' of potential signings and rumour, of which i'll pay attention when they actually sign a contract. Most notably should be the fact that we were the 5th highests spenders and yet its to Parky's great credit that we managed to survive!! That must be down to the signings of Reed, Haworth, Atkinson, Smalley etc At least Rhodes acknowledges that the loans were mainly useless. However these were the current managers choices and not Jacksons....hmmm. VILLAGE BANTAM begins this headline with a good positive rallying call. However he spoils this by suggesting that some fans maybe looking foolish next year. By this logic does this mean he/she looks foolish now? We ALL want to be cheering success but can only do this when its actuality. Why would this be foolish? Despite all the resorces we nearly went down so why would we be cheering the mangers name? Those accused this season by others of been negative are in fact the positive one's in that they want us to progress and not accept mediocrity. To many pandoras box-types will accept everything untill its too late. I like ALL city fans will be cheering like crazy IF we achieve success next year and will have earned the right to do so. If however this isn't the case, how will you be feeling village bantam? It[/p][/quote]ps had lawn and rhodes been together when city were 22nd in the league after 10 games before winning promotion to the prem would we have ever got promotion?[/p][/quote]If you are giving credit to Jacko for only losing games by the odd goal in his 5 games in charge then surely you will give the same credit to PP? Only 7 of his 47 games in charge resulted in defeats by more than 1 goal. Two of those defeats were from teams in higher leagues one from league 1 and one from the championship. Of the remaining 5 defeats of more than 2 goals, one was against Crawley away, one against Rotherham away who were only 3 points off a play-off spot -and were handed two goals on a plate from Jonny Mc's howlers. And one against Cheltenham away who were in a play-off spot and needed to win to ensure they stayed there.[/p][/quote]One day Lonnie you might highlight a section of a post that yo agree on. That would be a positive. Instead it appears you focus in on things written by other posters that you feel demonstrates your argument or you one you can argue with. Thats how it looks anyway and i apologise if that isn't the case. Indeed you yourself elsewhere question PP's record/form,but now feel the need to defend it. The point you allude to was/is to point out the mis-representation by many on here that continually suggest that Jacksons team was getting 'hammered' this season. It wasn't. this was also part of a more attractive attempt to play football. Any manager can also attempt to shut-up shop and neglect the purpose of football i.e. to score more than the opposition in the hope of keeping the score down, sneaking a draw or even win. The main point that you bypass is that i felt that the team was starting to settle. Indeed we were seeing in patches the attempt to play football on the floor.....your early disregard for Jackson goes against your usual stance of wanting time......and echoes those of our chairman, which thus far has proved unsuccesful.[/p][/quote]Sorry to have to pick bits that I disagree with in your post dann but you know what a stickler I am for accuracy. 1 I often make a comment whereby I agree with what other posters have said. That's a fact dann, just go back to: 'lonniejockstrap says... 4:39pm Sat 12 May 12' on this very same article as an example. 2 I was are, and will remain in support of the need to keep managers for a period of years rather than months. So, regardless of how you wish to interpret my criticisms of Jacko's period of management I would have wished him to stay for a lot longer than he did in order to be in with a chance of developing his ideas and his team. I have also criticised Stuart's, Taylor's and as you correctly point out, PP's methods. How I can convince you that there is a world of difference between my making constructive -on the whole- criticism/comment and wanting a manager sacked is something I am obviously struggling to get across. Can you -once again purely out of the interest of accuracy- provide a quote from me ever saying that I wanted Jacko sacked or that he shouldn't be given time? I was not impressed with his time as 'interim manager' and didn't think his performance justified him getting the job when he effectively jumped the queue of the interviewee's. In fact, the opposite WAS the case. I felt extremely annoyed and let-down that he made so many changes to the 'foundations' of the Club and Team only to resign and leave what he had as his vision to somebody else to have to work with after such a short but not insignificant period in charge as regards budgets, organisation, personnel changes etc were concerned. lonniejockstrap
  • Score: 0

1:54pm Sun 13 May 12

arhmen aleg says...

I think I have heard it all.
The new manager had 47 games.jacko left amidst well founded rumour of not working well with an unpaid servant staying in the Cedar Court hotel
who was poorly.
Christie acting in some kind of unpaid director of football role is overheard to be slaughtered by Lawn at a reserve match after Jacko had left and similarly walks shortly after.
The majority of the retained players were already there when PP arrives.
If I were Jacko and I once knew him well I would sue the club and Rhodes for defammation,libel and slander.
Gagging orders as part of any contract settlement when one leaves are meant to be a two way thing.
You have made a complete and utter fool of yourself Julian.
This man had the majority of the season to get the club safe.
It was with only about two weeks to go that what looked like certain relegation results and the team in freefall did HIS players(HIS after he had had them for a full season nearly)pull a couple of results out of the bag to save the City.
City will always struggle where the blame game constantly kicks in and demoralises the spirit of the club.
Stupid comments stupid interview stupid people in charge from the top men down.
What a shame there are no successfull Bradford people left prepared to get in and relieve Mark and Julian of the dreadfull mess they THEY have made of things.
This just about sums the shambles that the unhappy valley up.
I despair at the stupidity.
It is the same at the Bulls.
Thank god my own little team is in the well run hands of one Kevin Hainsworth.
Come and watch Bradford Park Avenue those Cityites that are lokking for attractive and successfull football.
You should have known the writing was on the wall when the AVENUE thrashed you in pre season.No fluke.
As someone who would profess to have supported city when they had a team (and AVENUE continued not to exist anymore)from the mid eighties on I can tell you that the midfield of BPA and particularly Nathan Hotte would walk into your team.
I watched a dreadfull 2 2 where but for last minute pens against Bristol Rovers at home City would have lost.
The standard was no better than much of what is on offer in Conference North.
I wish City well but cannot help but think that with those two at the helm the club will implode.
Good job his dad and wiley old Jack were prepared to give some help with the great financial crises last summer.
Why do these idiots get involved when they are clearly out of their depth.
Ock eye Jimmy now you lot that we have spent shedloads on as a development squad please b.......r off.We"ve no brass a mad scot brought you here in the first place now go follow him north rebuild Hadrians Wall and when done start digging out Orfa"s Dyke.Cos we"ve no brass and it was all Jackos fault.And the mad scots.
You could not make it up.
AVENUE FOREVER
I think I have heard it all. The new manager had 47 games.jacko left amidst well founded rumour of not working well with an unpaid servant staying in the Cedar Court hotel who was poorly. Christie acting in some kind of unpaid director of football role is overheard to be slaughtered by Lawn at a reserve match after Jacko had left and similarly walks shortly after. The majority of the retained players were already there when PP arrives. If I were Jacko and I once knew him well I would sue the club and Rhodes for defammation,libel and slander. Gagging orders as part of any contract settlement when one leaves are meant to be a two way thing. You have made a complete and utter fool of yourself Julian. This man had the majority of the season to get the club safe. It was with only about two weeks to go that what looked like certain relegation results and the team in freefall did HIS players(HIS after he had had them for a full season nearly)pull a couple of results out of the bag to save the City. City will always struggle where the blame game constantly kicks in and demoralises the spirit of the club. Stupid comments stupid interview stupid people in charge from the top men down. What a shame there are no successfull Bradford people left prepared to get in and relieve Mark and Julian of the dreadfull mess they THEY have made of things. This just about sums the shambles that the unhappy valley up. I despair at the stupidity. It is the same at the Bulls. Thank god my own little team is in the well run hands of one Kevin Hainsworth. Come and watch Bradford Park Avenue those Cityites that are lokking for attractive and successfull football. You should have known the writing was on the wall when the AVENUE thrashed you in pre season.No fluke. As someone who would profess to have supported city when they had a team (and AVENUE continued not to exist anymore)from the mid eighties on I can tell you that the midfield of BPA and particularly Nathan Hotte would walk into your team. I watched a dreadfull 2 2 where but for last minute pens against Bristol Rovers at home City would have lost. The standard was no better than much of what is on offer in Conference North. I wish City well but cannot help but think that with those two at the helm the club will implode. Good job his dad and wiley old Jack were prepared to give some help with the great financial crises last summer. Why do these idiots get involved when they are clearly out of their depth. Ock eye Jimmy now you lot that we have spent shedloads on as a development squad please b.......r off.We"ve no brass a mad scot brought you here in the first place now go follow him north rebuild Hadrians Wall and when done start digging out Orfa"s Dyke.Cos we"ve no brass and it was all Jackos fault.And the mad scots. You could not make it up. AVENUE FOREVER arhmen aleg
  • Score: 0

1:59pm Sun 13 May 12

dannbradfc says...

Nickloza wrote:
dannbradfc wrote:
Nickloza wrote:
dannbradfc wrote:
Nickloza wrote:
dannbradfc wrote:
dannbradfc wrote:
My initial thoughts upon seeing the headline was SEASON TICKETS.

Rhodes has obviously been drinking from the same glass as Lawn.

One view of this is that he has to say these things to justify fans upset at last season renewing their tickets. Its taken Rhodes a long time to come out with this. Why didn't he support Lawns initial similar claims at the time and thus deflect some of the stick that Lawn got?

For everyone who has been crying out for a long term strategy for the club, well this is why its not happened.

Both chairman could see that after only 6 games that the squad were going to go down. Hardly an endoresement for a long term business plan is it?

I actually was prepared to give them more time. Indeed there were signs that the side were starting to gel but we'll actually never know. We only lost games by one goal under jackson and with just a couple of more players, one a central defender this may have been resolved. We certainly saw more attacking play under Jackson and more football imo.

Did we improve? the league position would suggest no compared to the season before. Both chairman are pretty good at blaming the previous managers for a variety of failures. These managers have no right to reply contractually wise. However both chairman forget that they chose to employ these managers in the first place. They set the criteria and budgets etc. they are also culpubable for any failings.....

As i say this as to be the party line due to poor season ticket sales thus far. Fans need convincing. Why would that be? Are we all wrong? We will now be offered 'tit-bit's' of potential signings and rumour, of which i'll pay attention when they actually sign a contract.

Most notably should be the fact that we were the 5th highests spenders and yet its to Parky's great credit that we managed to survive!! That must be down to the signings of Reed, Haworth, Atkinson, Smalley etc

At least Rhodes acknowledges that the loans were mainly useless. However these were the current managers choices and not Jacksons....hmmm.

VILLAGE BANTAM begins this headline with a good positive rallying call. However he spoils this by suggesting that some fans maybe looking foolish next year. By this logic does this mean he/she looks foolish now?
We ALL want to be cheering success but can only do this when its actuality. Why would this be foolish? Despite all the resorces we nearly went down so why would we be cheering the mangers name?

Those accused this season by others of been negative are in fact the positive one's in that they want us to progress and not accept mediocrity. To many pandoras box-types will accept everything untill its too late. I like ALL city fans will be cheering like crazy IF we achieve success next year and will have earned the right to do so. If however this isn't the case, how will you be feeling village bantam?

It
ps had lawn and rhodes been together when city were 22nd in the league after 10 games before winning promotion to the prem would we have ever got promotion?
Whose money bankrolled City to get us in the prem? The Rhodes family!
AND?

Richmond was chairman and i think you've missed the point in that Jewell was given the time and we didn't panic.....Lawn and Rhodes imo did this season.....
So your saying they just simply put millions in and didn't have a say? Don't talk silly! I haven't missed any point It was a ridiculous post,
even on a 2nd opportunity to review you have missed the point again.

the point was that after 10 games with jewell in charge we were 22nd in the league but went up.

after less games this season Jackson's squad was deemed to be not good enough by the chairman resulting in spending more resources and a struggling season. Just perhaps they could have offered more time for the team to gel?

indeed the original post doesn't question rhodes committment (wasn't it his fathers money as well?) or involvement in the promotion season, only the current season. Indeed it actually questions the current joint chairmanships judgement......

hope you get it this time it would be ridiculous if you failed a third time ;-).....
You asked would we still have gone up now who's not reading I put the Rhodes family. They did back Jewell I suggest you read the following link http://www.bantamspa

st.co.uk/premiership

/premiership.html
of course i know this....but the original post asks whether the lawn/rhodes partnership would have put up with it. ididnt mention the rhodes family, nor the money involved. it was in essence a somewhat flippant example to perhaps suggest the folly of rhodes comments.......
[quote][p][bold]Nickloza[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dannbradfc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nickloza[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dannbradfc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nickloza[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dannbradfc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dannbradfc[/bold] wrote: My initial thoughts upon seeing the headline was SEASON TICKETS. Rhodes has obviously been drinking from the same glass as Lawn. One view of this is that he has to say these things to justify fans upset at last season renewing their tickets. Its taken Rhodes a long time to come out with this. Why didn't he support Lawns initial similar claims at the time and thus deflect some of the stick that Lawn got? For everyone who has been crying out for a long term strategy for the club, well this is why its not happened. Both chairman could see that after only 6 games that the squad were going to go down. Hardly an endoresement for a long term business plan is it? I actually was prepared to give them more time. Indeed there were signs that the side were starting to gel but we'll actually never know. We only lost games by one goal under jackson and with just a couple of more players, one a central defender this may have been resolved. We certainly saw more attacking play under Jackson and more football imo. Did we improve? the league position would suggest no compared to the season before. Both chairman are pretty good at blaming the previous managers for a variety of failures. These managers have no right to reply contractually wise. However both chairman forget that they chose to employ these managers in the first place. They set the criteria and budgets etc. they are also culpubable for any failings..... As i say this as to be the party line due to poor season ticket sales thus far. Fans need convincing. Why would that be? Are we all wrong? We will now be offered 'tit-bit's' of potential signings and rumour, of which i'll pay attention when they actually sign a contract. Most notably should be the fact that we were the 5th highests spenders and yet its to Parky's great credit that we managed to survive!! That must be down to the signings of Reed, Haworth, Atkinson, Smalley etc At least Rhodes acknowledges that the loans were mainly useless. However these were the current managers choices and not Jacksons....hmmm. VILLAGE BANTAM begins this headline with a good positive rallying call. However he spoils this by suggesting that some fans maybe looking foolish next year. By this logic does this mean he/she looks foolish now? We ALL want to be cheering success but can only do this when its actuality. Why would this be foolish? Despite all the resorces we nearly went down so why would we be cheering the mangers name? Those accused this season by others of been negative are in fact the positive one's in that they want us to progress and not accept mediocrity. To many pandoras box-types will accept everything untill its too late. I like ALL city fans will be cheering like crazy IF we achieve success next year and will have earned the right to do so. If however this isn't the case, how will you be feeling village bantam? It[/p][/quote]ps had lawn and rhodes been together when city were 22nd in the league after 10 games before winning promotion to the prem would we have ever got promotion?[/p][/quote]Whose money bankrolled City to get us in the prem? The Rhodes family![/p][/quote]AND? Richmond was chairman and i think you've missed the point in that Jewell was given the time and we didn't panic.....Lawn and Rhodes imo did this season.....[/p][/quote]So your saying they just simply put millions in and didn't have a say? Don't talk silly! I haven't missed any point It was a ridiculous post,[/p][/quote]even on a 2nd opportunity to review you have missed the point again. the point was that after 10 games with jewell in charge we were 22nd in the league but went up. after less games this season Jackson's squad was deemed to be not good enough by the chairman resulting in spending more resources and a struggling season. Just perhaps they could have offered more time for the team to gel? indeed the original post doesn't question rhodes committment (wasn't it his fathers money as well?) or involvement in the promotion season, only the current season. Indeed it actually questions the current joint chairmanships judgement...... hope you get it this time it would be ridiculous if you failed a third time ;-).....[/p][/quote]You asked would we still have gone up now who's not reading I put the Rhodes family. They did back Jewell I suggest you read the following link http://www.bantamspa st.co.uk/premiership /premiership.html[/p][/quote]of course i know this....but the original post asks whether the lawn/rhodes partnership would have put up with it. ididnt mention the rhodes family, nor the money involved. it was in essence a somewhat flippant example to perhaps suggest the folly of rhodes comments....... dannbradfc
  • Score: 0

2:11pm Sun 13 May 12

dannbradfc says...

lonniejockstrap wrote:
dannbradfc wrote:
lonniejockstrap wrote:
dannbradfc wrote:
dannbradfc wrote:
My initial thoughts upon seeing the headline was SEASON TICKETS.

Rhodes has obviously been drinking from the same glass as Lawn.

One view of this is that he has to say these things to justify fans upset at last season renewing their tickets. Its taken Rhodes a long time to come out with this. Why didn't he support Lawns initial similar claims at the time and thus deflect some of the stick that Lawn got?

For everyone who has been crying out for a long term strategy for the club, well this is why its not happened.

Both chairman could see that after only 6 games that the squad were going to go down. Hardly an endoresement for a long term business plan is it?

I actually was prepared to give them more time. Indeed there were signs that the side were starting to gel but we'll actually never know. We only lost games by one goal under jackson and with just a couple of more players, one a central defender this may have been resolved. We certainly saw more attacking play under Jackson and more football imo.

Did we improve? the league position would suggest no compared to the season before. Both chairman are pretty good at blaming the previous managers for a variety of failures. These managers have no right to reply contractually wise. However both chairman forget that they chose to employ these managers in the first place. They set the criteria and budgets etc. they are also culpubable for any failings.....

As i say this as to be the party line due to poor season ticket sales thus far. Fans need convincing. Why would that be? Are we all wrong? We will now be offered 'tit-bit's' of potential signings and rumour, of which i'll pay attention when they actually sign a contract.

Most notably should be the fact that we were the 5th highests spenders and yet its to Parky's great credit that we managed to survive!! That must be down to the signings of Reed, Haworth, Atkinson, Smalley etc

At least Rhodes acknowledges that the loans were mainly useless. However these were the current managers choices and not Jacksons....hmmm.

VILLAGE BANTAM begins this headline with a good positive rallying call. However he spoils this by suggesting that some fans maybe looking foolish next year. By this logic does this mean he/she looks foolish now?
We ALL want to be cheering success but can only do this when its actuality. Why would this be foolish? Despite all the resorces we nearly went down so why would we be cheering the mangers name?

Those accused this season by others of been negative are in fact the positive one's in that they want us to progress and not accept mediocrity. To many pandoras box-types will accept everything untill its too late. I like ALL city fans will be cheering like crazy IF we achieve success next year and will have earned the right to do so. If however this isn't the case, how will you be feeling village bantam?

It
ps had lawn and rhodes been together when city were 22nd in the league after 10 games before winning promotion to the prem would we have ever got promotion?
If you are giving credit to Jacko for only losing games by the odd goal in his 5 games in charge then surely you will give the same credit to PP? Only 7 of his 47 games in charge resulted in defeats by more than 1 goal.

Two of those defeats were from teams in higher leagues one from league 1 and one from the championship.

Of the remaining 5 defeats of more than 2 goals, one was against Crawley away, one against Rotherham away who were only 3 points off a play-off spot -and were handed two goals on a plate from Jonny Mc's howlers. And one against Cheltenham away who were in a play-off spot and needed to win to ensure they stayed there.
One day Lonnie you might highlight a section of a post that yo agree on. That would be a positive. Instead it appears you focus in on things written by other posters that you feel demonstrates your argument or you one you can argue with. Thats how it looks anyway and i apologise if that isn't the case. Indeed you yourself elsewhere question PP's record/form,but now feel the need to defend it.

The point you allude to was/is to point out the mis-representation by many on here that continually suggest that Jacksons team was getting 'hammered' this season. It wasn't. this was also part of a more attractive attempt to play football. Any manager can also attempt to shut-up shop and neglect the purpose of football i.e. to score more than the opposition in the hope of keeping the score down, sneaking a draw or even win.

The main point that you bypass is that i felt that the team was starting to settle. Indeed we were seeing in patches the attempt to play football on the floor.....your early disregard for Jackson goes against your usual stance of wanting time......and echoes those of our chairman, which thus far has proved unsuccesful.
Sorry to have to pick bits that I disagree with in your post dann but you know what a stickler I am for accuracy.

1 I often make a comment whereby I agree with what other posters have said. That's a fact dann, just go back to: 'lonniejockstrap says...
4:39pm Sat 12 May 12' on this very same article as an example.

2 I was are, and will remain in support of the need to keep managers for a period of years rather than months. So, regardless of how you wish to interpret my criticisms of Jacko's period of management I would have wished him to stay for a lot longer than he did in order to be in with a chance of developing his ideas and his team. I have also criticised Stuart's, Taylor's and as you correctly point out, PP's methods. How I can convince you that there is a world of difference between my making constructive -on the whole- criticism/comment and wanting a manager sacked is something I am obviously struggling to get across. Can you -once again purely out of the interest of accuracy- provide a quote from me ever saying that I wanted Jacko sacked or that he shouldn't be given time? I was not impressed with his time as 'interim manager' and didn't think his performance justified him getting the job when he effectively jumped the queue of the interviewee's.

In fact, the opposite WAS the case. I felt extremely annoyed and let-down that he made so many changes to the 'foundations' of the Club and Team only to resign and leave what he had as his vision to somebody else to have to work with after such a short but not insignificant period in charge as regards budgets, organisation, personnel changes etc were concerned.
ta for the reply.

i haven't stated that you called for anyone to be sacked. indeed you may remember my praise for your solid defence of taylor.

Your last part of the post is taking the official line however, and whilst your response maybe that that is what we have to be base everything on, often jobs become untenable. How many clubs have had three out of their last 4 managers resign? perhaps there are some things that don't go to press? I am obviously been 'flippant' here because to solely unquestinably follow the official party line is folly.

Few other clubs have had that many resignations in such a short space of time. Indeed i wouldn't be surprised if no chairman in history has had all his managers resign/leave the club without been sacked like Lawn as.

Indeed you should also perhaps question the state Taylor left the club in.

Indeed there is a case that Taylors legacy directly not only Jackson (which it undoutedly did) but also continued through to Parky.

Why not question the boards ability to keep managers after they have chosen them? they decide that they are the ideal candidate afterall. What goes on that they feel they must resign?
[quote][p][bold]lonniejockstrap[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dannbradfc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lonniejockstrap[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dannbradfc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dannbradfc[/bold] wrote: My initial thoughts upon seeing the headline was SEASON TICKETS. Rhodes has obviously been drinking from the same glass as Lawn. One view of this is that he has to say these things to justify fans upset at last season renewing their tickets. Its taken Rhodes a long time to come out with this. Why didn't he support Lawns initial similar claims at the time and thus deflect some of the stick that Lawn got? For everyone who has been crying out for a long term strategy for the club, well this is why its not happened. Both chairman could see that after only 6 games that the squad were going to go down. Hardly an endoresement for a long term business plan is it? I actually was prepared to give them more time. Indeed there were signs that the side were starting to gel but we'll actually never know. We only lost games by one goal under jackson and with just a couple of more players, one a central defender this may have been resolved. We certainly saw more attacking play under Jackson and more football imo. Did we improve? the league position would suggest no compared to the season before. Both chairman are pretty good at blaming the previous managers for a variety of failures. These managers have no right to reply contractually wise. However both chairman forget that they chose to employ these managers in the first place. They set the criteria and budgets etc. they are also culpubable for any failings..... As i say this as to be the party line due to poor season ticket sales thus far. Fans need convincing. Why would that be? Are we all wrong? We will now be offered 'tit-bit's' of potential signings and rumour, of which i'll pay attention when they actually sign a contract. Most notably should be the fact that we were the 5th highests spenders and yet its to Parky's great credit that we managed to survive!! That must be down to the signings of Reed, Haworth, Atkinson, Smalley etc At least Rhodes acknowledges that the loans were mainly useless. However these were the current managers choices and not Jacksons....hmmm. VILLAGE BANTAM begins this headline with a good positive rallying call. However he spoils this by suggesting that some fans maybe looking foolish next year. By this logic does this mean he/she looks foolish now? We ALL want to be cheering success but can only do this when its actuality. Why would this be foolish? Despite all the resorces we nearly went down so why would we be cheering the mangers name? Those accused this season by others of been negative are in fact the positive one's in that they want us to progress and not accept mediocrity. To many pandoras box-types will accept everything untill its too late. I like ALL city fans will be cheering like crazy IF we achieve success next year and will have earned the right to do so. If however this isn't the case, how will you be feeling village bantam? It[/p][/quote]ps had lawn and rhodes been together when city were 22nd in the league after 10 games before winning promotion to the prem would we have ever got promotion?[/p][/quote]If you are giving credit to Jacko for only losing games by the odd goal in his 5 games in charge then surely you will give the same credit to PP? Only 7 of his 47 games in charge resulted in defeats by more than 1 goal. Two of those defeats were from teams in higher leagues one from league 1 and one from the championship. Of the remaining 5 defeats of more than 2 goals, one was against Crawley away, one against Rotherham away who were only 3 points off a play-off spot -and were handed two goals on a plate from Jonny Mc's howlers. And one against Cheltenham away who were in a play-off spot and needed to win to ensure they stayed there.[/p][/quote]One day Lonnie you might highlight a section of a post that yo agree on. That would be a positive. Instead it appears you focus in on things written by other posters that you feel demonstrates your argument or you one you can argue with. Thats how it looks anyway and i apologise if that isn't the case. Indeed you yourself elsewhere question PP's record/form,but now feel the need to defend it. The point you allude to was/is to point out the mis-representation by many on here that continually suggest that Jacksons team was getting 'hammered' this season. It wasn't. this was also part of a more attractive attempt to play football. Any manager can also attempt to shut-up shop and neglect the purpose of football i.e. to score more than the opposition in the hope of keeping the score down, sneaking a draw or even win. The main point that you bypass is that i felt that the team was starting to settle. Indeed we were seeing in patches the attempt to play football on the floor.....your early disregard for Jackson goes against your usual stance of wanting time......and echoes those of our chairman, which thus far has proved unsuccesful.[/p][/quote]Sorry to have to pick bits that I disagree with in your post dann but you know what a stickler I am for accuracy. 1 I often make a comment whereby I agree with what other posters have said. That's a fact dann, just go back to: 'lonniejockstrap says... 4:39pm Sat 12 May 12' on this very same article as an example. 2 I was are, and will remain in support of the need to keep managers for a period of years rather than months. So, regardless of how you wish to interpret my criticisms of Jacko's period of management I would have wished him to stay for a lot longer than he did in order to be in with a chance of developing his ideas and his team. I have also criticised Stuart's, Taylor's and as you correctly point out, PP's methods. How I can convince you that there is a world of difference between my making constructive -on the whole- criticism/comment and wanting a manager sacked is something I am obviously struggling to get across. Can you -once again purely out of the interest of accuracy- provide a quote from me ever saying that I wanted Jacko sacked or that he shouldn't be given time? I was not impressed with his time as 'interim manager' and didn't think his performance justified him getting the job when he effectively jumped the queue of the interviewee's. In fact, the opposite WAS the case. I felt extremely annoyed and let-down that he made so many changes to the 'foundations' of the Club and Team only to resign and leave what he had as his vision to somebody else to have to work with after such a short but not insignificant period in charge as regards budgets, organisation, personnel changes etc were concerned.[/p][/quote]ta for the reply. i haven't stated that you called for anyone to be sacked. indeed you may remember my praise for your solid defence of taylor. Your last part of the post is taking the official line however, and whilst your response maybe that that is what we have to be base everything on, often jobs become untenable. How many clubs have had three out of their last 4 managers resign? perhaps there are some things that don't go to press? I am obviously been 'flippant' here because to solely unquestinably follow the official party line is folly. Few other clubs have had that many resignations in such a short space of time. Indeed i wouldn't be surprised if no chairman in history has had all his managers resign/leave the club without been sacked like Lawn as. Indeed you should also perhaps question the state Taylor left the club in. Indeed there is a case that Taylors legacy directly not only Jackson (which it undoutedly did) but also continued through to Parky. Why not question the boards ability to keep managers after they have chosen them? they decide that they are the ideal candidate afterall. What goes on that they feel they must resign? dannbradfc
  • Score: 0

5:23pm Sun 13 May 12

Victor Clayton says...

rhodes and Lawn are not perfect, but at the moment they are all that we have. as far as I know the club is not in any imidiate financial danger and I am grateful for that.
rhodes and Lawn are not perfect, but at the moment they are all that we have. as far as I know the club is not in any imidiate financial danger and I am grateful for that. Victor Clayton
  • Score: 0

8:07pm Sun 13 May 12

Onebrianmitchell says...

dannbradfc wrote:
lonniejockstrap wrote:
dannbradfc wrote:
lonniejockstrap wrote:
dannbradfc wrote:
dannbradfc wrote:
My initial thoughts upon seeing the headline was SEASON TICKETS.

Rhodes has obviously been drinking from the same glass as Lawn.

One view of this is that he has to say these things to justify fans upset at last season renewing their tickets. Its taken Rhodes a long time to come out with this. Why didn't he support Lawns initial similar claims at the time and thus deflect some of the stick that Lawn got?

For everyone who has been crying out for a long term strategy for the club, well this is why its not happened.

Both chairman could see that after only 6 games that the squad were going to go down. Hardly an endoresement for a long term business plan is it?

I actually was prepared to give them more time. Indeed there were signs that the side were starting to gel but we'll actually never know. We only lost games by one goal under jackson and with just a couple of more players, one a central defender this may have been resolved. We certainly saw more attacking play under Jackson and more football imo.

Did we improve? the league position would suggest no compared to the season before. Both chairman are pretty good at blaming the previous managers for a variety of failures. These managers have no right to reply contractually wise. However both chairman forget that they chose to employ these managers in the first place. They set the criteria and budgets etc. they are also culpubable for any failings.....

As i say this as to be the party line due to poor season ticket sales thus far. Fans need convincing. Why would that be? Are we all wrong? We will now be offered 'tit-bit's' of potential signings and rumour, of which i'll pay attention when they actually sign a contract.

Most notably should be the fact that we were the 5th highests spenders and yet its to Parky's great credit that we managed to survive!! That must be down to the signings of Reed, Haworth, Atkinson, Smalley etc

At least Rhodes acknowledges that the loans were mainly useless. However these were the current managers choices and not Jacksons....hmmm.

VILLAGE BANTAM begins this headline with a good positive rallying call. However he spoils this by suggesting that some fans maybe looking foolish next year. By this logic does this mean he/she looks foolish now?
We ALL want to be cheering success but can only do this when its actuality. Why would this be foolish? Despite all the resorces we nearly went down so why would we be cheering the mangers name?

Those accused this season by others of been negative are in fact the positive one's in that they want us to progress and not accept mediocrity. To many pandoras box-types will accept everything untill its too late. I like ALL city fans will be cheering like crazy IF we achieve success next year and will have earned the right to do so. If however this isn't the case, how will you be feeling village bantam?

It
ps had lawn and rhodes been together when city were 22nd in the league after 10 games before winning promotion to the prem would we have ever got promotion?
If you are giving credit to Jacko for only losing games by the odd goal in his 5 games in charge then surely you will give the same credit to PP? Only 7 of his 47 games in charge resulted in defeats by more than 1 goal.

Two of those defeats were from teams in higher leagues one from league 1 and one from the championship.

Of the remaining 5 defeats of more than 2 goals, one was against Crawley away, one against Rotherham away who were only 3 points off a play-off spot -and were handed two goals on a plate from Jonny Mc's howlers. And one against Cheltenham away who were in a play-off spot and needed to win to ensure they stayed there.
One day Lonnie you might highlight a section of a post that yo agree on. That would be a positive. Instead it appears you focus in on things written by other posters that you feel demonstrates your argument or you one you can argue with. Thats how it looks anyway and i apologise if that isn't the case. Indeed you yourself elsewhere question PP's record/form,but now feel the need to defend it.

The point you allude to was/is to point out the mis-representation by many on here that continually suggest that Jacksons team was getting 'hammered' this season. It wasn't. this was also part of a more attractive attempt to play football. Any manager can also attempt to shut-up shop and neglect the purpose of football i.e. to score more than the opposition in the hope of keeping the score down, sneaking a draw or even win.

The main point that you bypass is that i felt that the team was starting to settle. Indeed we were seeing in patches the attempt to play football on the floor.....your early disregard for Jackson goes against your usual stance of wanting time......and echoes those of our chairman, which thus far has proved unsuccesful.
Sorry to have to pick bits that I disagree with in your post dann but you know what a stickler I am for accuracy.

1 I often make a comment whereby I agree with what other posters have said. That's a fact dann, just go back to: 'lonniejockstrap says...
4:39pm Sat 12 May 12' on this very same article as an example.

2 I was are, and will remain in support of the need to keep managers for a period of years rather than months. So, regardless of how you wish to interpret my criticisms of Jacko's period of management I would have wished him to stay for a lot longer than he did in order to be in with a chance of developing his ideas and his team. I have also criticised Stuart's, Taylor's and as you correctly point out, PP's methods. How I can convince you that there is a world of difference between my making constructive -on the whole- criticism/comment and wanting a manager sacked is something I am obviously struggling to get across. Can you -once again purely out of the interest of accuracy- provide a quote from me ever saying that I wanted Jacko sacked or that he shouldn't be given time? I was not impressed with his time as 'interim manager' and didn't think his performance justified him getting the job when he effectively jumped the queue of the interviewee's.

In fact, the opposite WAS the case. I felt extremely annoyed and let-down that he made so many changes to the 'foundations' of the Club and Team only to resign and leave what he had as his vision to somebody else to have to work with after such a short but not insignificant period in charge as regards budgets, organisation, personnel changes etc were concerned.
ta for the reply.

i haven't stated that you called for anyone to be sacked. indeed you may remember my praise for your solid defence of taylor.

Your last part of the post is taking the official line however, and whilst your response maybe that that is what we have to be base everything on, often jobs become untenable. How many clubs have had three out of their last 4 managers resign? perhaps there are some things that don't go to press? I am obviously been 'flippant' here because to solely unquestinably follow the official party line is folly.

Few other clubs have had that many resignations in such a short space of time. Indeed i wouldn't be surprised if no chairman in history has had all his managers resign/leave the club without been sacked like Lawn as.

Indeed you should also perhaps question the state Taylor left the club in.

Indeed there is a case that Taylors legacy directly not only Jackson (which it undoutedly did) but also continued through to Parky.

Why not question the boards ability to keep managers after they have chosen them? they decide that they are the ideal candidate afterall. What goes on that they feel they must resign?
What cracks me up on here is when you make an irrefutable point with facts it's simply ignored for idiots to carry on spouting rubbish.

"indeed there is a case that Taylor's directly (effected it should say) directed not only Jackson but Parkinson's"

So again. Why then is Parky keeping 9 out of 12 of those players and only 3 of his own?

He and he alone has decided that 9 of the players he inherited are worthy of next year. And only 3 of his he has kept. So it doesn't add up does it?

The fact is that with the fifth highest budget in the league we have finished 18th.

Whoever signed who also doesn't matter when PP shows demonstrably that he rates 9 players who was at the club before his tenure.

Quite simply he's failed.

As ive said before though we only have 12 wanted players on the books so lets see who he signs and look forward to next season.

I personally think Parkys ****. But I truely want him to prove me wrong. Badly wrong.
[quote][p][bold]dannbradfc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lonniejockstrap[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dannbradfc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lonniejockstrap[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dannbradfc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dannbradfc[/bold] wrote: My initial thoughts upon seeing the headline was SEASON TICKETS. Rhodes has obviously been drinking from the same glass as Lawn. One view of this is that he has to say these things to justify fans upset at last season renewing their tickets. Its taken Rhodes a long time to come out with this. Why didn't he support Lawns initial similar claims at the time and thus deflect some of the stick that Lawn got? For everyone who has been crying out for a long term strategy for the club, well this is why its not happened. Both chairman could see that after only 6 games that the squad were going to go down. Hardly an endoresement for a long term business plan is it? I actually was prepared to give them more time. Indeed there were signs that the side were starting to gel but we'll actually never know. We only lost games by one goal under jackson and with just a couple of more players, one a central defender this may have been resolved. We certainly saw more attacking play under Jackson and more football imo. Did we improve? the league position would suggest no compared to the season before. Both chairman are pretty good at blaming the previous managers for a variety of failures. These managers have no right to reply contractually wise. However both chairman forget that they chose to employ these managers in the first place. They set the criteria and budgets etc. they are also culpubable for any failings..... As i say this as to be the party line due to poor season ticket sales thus far. Fans need convincing. Why would that be? Are we all wrong? We will now be offered 'tit-bit's' of potential signings and rumour, of which i'll pay attention when they actually sign a contract. Most notably should be the fact that we were the 5th highests spenders and yet its to Parky's great credit that we managed to survive!! That must be down to the signings of Reed, Haworth, Atkinson, Smalley etc At least Rhodes acknowledges that the loans were mainly useless. However these were the current managers choices and not Jacksons....hmmm. VILLAGE BANTAM begins this headline with a good positive rallying call. However he spoils this by suggesting that some fans maybe looking foolish next year. By this logic does this mean he/she looks foolish now? We ALL want to be cheering success but can only do this when its actuality. Why would this be foolish? Despite all the resorces we nearly went down so why would we be cheering the mangers name? Those accused this season by others of been negative are in fact the positive one's in that they want us to progress and not accept mediocrity. To many pandoras box-types will accept everything untill its too late. I like ALL city fans will be cheering like crazy IF we achieve success next year and will have earned the right to do so. If however this isn't the case, how will you be feeling village bantam? It[/p][/quote]ps had lawn and rhodes been together when city were 22nd in the league after 10 games before winning promotion to the prem would we have ever got promotion?[/p][/quote]If you are giving credit to Jacko for only losing games by the odd goal in his 5 games in charge then surely you will give the same credit to PP? Only 7 of his 47 games in charge resulted in defeats by more than 1 goal. Two of those defeats were from teams in higher leagues one from league 1 and one from the championship. Of the remaining 5 defeats of more than 2 goals, one was against Crawley away, one against Rotherham away who were only 3 points off a play-off spot -and were handed two goals on a plate from Jonny Mc's howlers. And one against Cheltenham away who were in a play-off spot and needed to win to ensure they stayed there.[/p][/quote]One day Lonnie you might highlight a section of a post that yo agree on. That would be a positive. Instead it appears you focus in on things written by other posters that you feel demonstrates your argument or you one you can argue with. Thats how it looks anyway and i apologise if that isn't the case. Indeed you yourself elsewhere question PP's record/form,but now feel the need to defend it. The point you allude to was/is to point out the mis-representation by many on here that continually suggest that Jacksons team was getting 'hammered' this season. It wasn't. this was also part of a more attractive attempt to play football. Any manager can also attempt to shut-up shop and neglect the purpose of football i.e. to score more than the opposition in the hope of keeping the score down, sneaking a draw or even win. The main point that you bypass is that i felt that the team was starting to settle. Indeed we were seeing in patches the attempt to play football on the floor.....your early disregard for Jackson goes against your usual stance of wanting time......and echoes those of our chairman, which thus far has proved unsuccesful.[/p][/quote]Sorry to have to pick bits that I disagree with in your post dann but you know what a stickler I am for accuracy. 1 I often make a comment whereby I agree with what other posters have said. That's a fact dann, just go back to: 'lonniejockstrap says... 4:39pm Sat 12 May 12' on this very same article as an example. 2 I was are, and will remain in support of the need to keep managers for a period of years rather than months. So, regardless of how you wish to interpret my criticisms of Jacko's period of management I would have wished him to stay for a lot longer than he did in order to be in with a chance of developing his ideas and his team. I have also criticised Stuart's, Taylor's and as you correctly point out, PP's methods. How I can convince you that there is a world of difference between my making constructive -on the whole- criticism/comment and wanting a manager sacked is something I am obviously struggling to get across. Can you -once again purely out of the interest of accuracy- provide a quote from me ever saying that I wanted Jacko sacked or that he shouldn't be given time? I was not impressed with his time as 'interim manager' and didn't think his performance justified him getting the job when he effectively jumped the queue of the interviewee's. In fact, the opposite WAS the case. I felt extremely annoyed and let-down that he made so many changes to the 'foundations' of the Club and Team only to resign and leave what he had as his vision to somebody else to have to work with after such a short but not insignificant period in charge as regards budgets, organisation, personnel changes etc were concerned.[/p][/quote]ta for the reply. i haven't stated that you called for anyone to be sacked. indeed you may remember my praise for your solid defence of taylor. Your last part of the post is taking the official line however, and whilst your response maybe that that is what we have to be base everything on, often jobs become untenable. How many clubs have had three out of their last 4 managers resign? perhaps there are some things that don't go to press? I am obviously been 'flippant' here because to solely unquestinably follow the official party line is folly. Few other clubs have had that many resignations in such a short space of time. Indeed i wouldn't be surprised if no chairman in history has had all his managers resign/leave the club without been sacked like Lawn as. Indeed you should also perhaps question the state Taylor left the club in. Indeed there is a case that Taylors legacy directly not only Jackson (which it undoutedly did) but also continued through to Parky. Why not question the boards ability to keep managers after they have chosen them? they decide that they are the ideal candidate afterall. What goes on that they feel they must resign?[/p][/quote]What cracks me up on here is when you make an irrefutable point with facts it's simply ignored for idiots to carry on spouting rubbish. "indeed there is a case that Taylor's directly (effected it should say) directed not only Jackson but Parkinson's" So again. Why then is Parky keeping 9 out of 12 of those players and only 3 of his own? He and he alone has decided that 9 of the players he inherited are worthy of next year. And only 3 of his he has kept. So it doesn't add up does it? The fact is that with the fifth highest budget in the league we have finished 18th. Whoever signed who also doesn't matter when PP shows demonstrably that he rates 9 players who was at the club before his tenure. Quite simply he's failed. As ive said before though we only have 12 wanted players on the books so lets see who he signs and look forward to next season. I personally think Parkys ****. But I truely want him to prove me wrong. Badly wrong. Onebrianmitchell
  • Score: 0

8:35pm Sun 13 May 12

shaun from richmond says...

Onebrianmitchell wrote:
dannbradfc wrote:
lonniejockstrap wrote:
dannbradfc wrote:
lonniejockstrap wrote:
dannbradfc wrote:
dannbradfc wrote: My initial thoughts upon seeing the headline was SEASON TICKETS. Rhodes has obviously been drinking from the same glass as Lawn. One view of this is that he has to say these things to justify fans upset at last season renewing their tickets. Its taken Rhodes a long time to come out with this. Why didn't he support Lawns initial similar claims at the time and thus deflect some of the stick that Lawn got? For everyone who has been crying out for a long term strategy for the club, well this is why its not happened. Both chairman could see that after only 6 games that the squad were going to go down. Hardly an endoresement for a long term business plan is it? I actually was prepared to give them more time. Indeed there were signs that the side were starting to gel but we'll actually never know. We only lost games by one goal under jackson and with just a couple of more players, one a central defender this may have been resolved. We certainly saw more attacking play under Jackson and more football imo. Did we improve? the league position would suggest no compared to the season before. Both chairman are pretty good at blaming the previous managers for a variety of failures. These managers have no right to reply contractually wise. However both chairman forget that they chose to employ these managers in the first place. They set the criteria and budgets etc. they are also culpubable for any failings..... As i say this as to be the party line due to poor season ticket sales thus far. Fans need convincing. Why would that be? Are we all wrong? We will now be offered 'tit-bit's' of potential signings and rumour, of which i'll pay attention when they actually sign a contract. Most notably should be the fact that we were the 5th highests spenders and yet its to Parky's great credit that we managed to survive!! That must be down to the signings of Reed, Haworth, Atkinson, Smalley etc At least Rhodes acknowledges that the loans were mainly useless. However these were the current managers choices and not Jacksons....hmmm. VILLAGE BANTAM begins this headline with a good positive rallying call. However he spoils this by suggesting that some fans maybe looking foolish next year. By this logic does this mean he/she looks foolish now? We ALL want to be cheering success but can only do this when its actuality. Why would this be foolish? Despite all the resorces we nearly went down so why would we be cheering the mangers name? Those accused this season by others of been negative are in fact the positive one's in that they want us to progress and not accept mediocrity. To many pandoras box-types will accept everything untill its too late. I like ALL city fans will be cheering like crazy IF we achieve success next year and will have earned the right to do so. If however this isn't the case, how will you be feeling village bantam? It
ps had lawn and rhodes been together when city were 22nd in the league after 10 games before winning promotion to the prem would we have ever got promotion?
If you are giving credit to Jacko for only losing games by the odd goal in his 5 games in charge then surely you will give the same credit to PP? Only 7 of his 47 games in charge resulted in defeats by more than 1 goal. Two of those defeats were from teams in higher leagues one from league 1 and one from the championship. Of the remaining 5 defeats of more than 2 goals, one was against Crawley away, one against Rotherham away who were only 3 points off a play-off spot -and were handed two goals on a plate from Jonny Mc's howlers. And one against Cheltenham away who were in a play-off spot and needed to win to ensure they stayed there.
One day Lonnie you might highlight a section of a post that yo agree on. That would be a positive. Instead it appears you focus in on things written by other posters that you feel demonstrates your argument or you one you can argue with. Thats how it looks anyway and i apologise if that isn't the case. Indeed you yourself elsewhere question PP's record/form,but now feel the need to defend it. The point you allude to was/is to point out the mis-representation by many on here that continually suggest that Jacksons team was getting 'hammered' this season. It wasn't. this was also part of a more attractive attempt to play football. Any manager can also attempt to shut-up shop and neglect the purpose of football i.e. to score more than the opposition in the hope of keeping the score down, sneaking a draw or even win. The main point that you bypass is that i felt that the team was starting to settle. Indeed we were seeing in patches the attempt to play football on the floor.....your early disregard for Jackson goes against your usual stance of wanting time......and echoes those of our chairman, which thus far has proved unsuccesful.
Sorry to have to pick bits that I disagree with in your post dann but you know what a stickler I am for accuracy. 1 I often make a comment whereby I agree with what other posters have said. That's a fact dann, just go back to: 'lonniejockstrap says... 4:39pm Sat 12 May 12' on this very same article as an example. 2 I was are, and will remain in support of the need to keep managers for a period of years rather than months. So, regardless of how you wish to interpret my criticisms of Jacko's period of management I would have wished him to stay for a lot longer than he did in order to be in with a chance of developing his ideas and his team. I have also criticised Stuart's, Taylor's and as you correctly point out, PP's methods. How I can convince you that there is a world of difference between my making constructive -on the whole- criticism/comment and wanting a manager sacked is something I am obviously struggling to get across. Can you -once again purely out of the interest of accuracy- provide a quote from me ever saying that I wanted Jacko sacked or that he shouldn't be given time? I was not impressed with his time as 'interim manager' and didn't think his performance justified him getting the job when he effectively jumped the queue of the interviewee's. In fact, the opposite WAS the case. I felt extremely annoyed and let-down that he made so many changes to the 'foundations' of the Club and Team only to resign and leave what he had as his vision to somebody else to have to work with after such a short but not insignificant period in charge as regards budgets, organisation, personnel changes etc were concerned.
ta for the reply. i haven't stated that you called for anyone to be sacked. indeed you may remember my praise for your solid defence of taylor. Your last part of the post is taking the official line however, and whilst your response maybe that that is what we have to be base everything on, often jobs become untenable. How many clubs have had three out of their last 4 managers resign? perhaps there are some things that don't go to press? I am obviously been 'flippant' here because to solely unquestinably follow the official party line is folly. Few other clubs have had that many resignations in such a short space of time. Indeed i wouldn't be surprised if no chairman in history has had all his managers resign/leave the club without been sacked like Lawn as. Indeed you should also perhaps question the state Taylor left the club in. Indeed there is a case that Taylors legacy directly not only Jackson (which it undoutedly did) but also continued through to Parky. Why not question the boards ability to keep managers after they have chosen them? they decide that they are the ideal candidate afterall. What goes on that they feel they must resign?
What cracks me up on here is when you make an irrefutable point with facts it's simply ignored for idiots to carry on spouting rubbish. "indeed there is a case that Taylor's directly (effected it should say) directed not only Jackson but Parkinson's" So again. Why then is Parky keeping 9 out of 12 of those players and only 3 of his own? He and he alone has decided that 9 of the players he inherited are worthy of next year. And only 3 of his he has kept. So it doesn't add up does it? The fact is that with the fifth highest budget in the league we have finished 18th. Whoever signed who also doesn't matter when PP shows demonstrably that he rates 9 players who was at the club before his tenure. Quite simply he's failed. As ive said before though we only have 12 wanted players on the books so lets see who he signs and look forward to next season. I personally think Parkys ****. But I truely want him to prove me wrong. Badly wrong.
Sorry Brian!! HE WONT!!.
[quote][p][bold]Onebrianmitchell[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dannbradfc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lonniejockstrap[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dannbradfc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lonniejockstrap[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dannbradfc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dannbradfc[/bold] wrote: My initial thoughts upon seeing the headline was SEASON TICKETS. Rhodes has obviously been drinking from the same glass as Lawn. One view of this is that he has to say these things to justify fans upset at last season renewing their tickets. Its taken Rhodes a long time to come out with this. Why didn't he support Lawns initial similar claims at the time and thus deflect some of the stick that Lawn got? For everyone who has been crying out for a long term strategy for the club, well this is why its not happened. Both chairman could see that after only 6 games that the squad were going to go down. Hardly an endoresement for a long term business plan is it? I actually was prepared to give them more time. Indeed there were signs that the side were starting to gel but we'll actually never know. We only lost games by one goal under jackson and with just a couple of more players, one a central defender this may have been resolved. We certainly saw more attacking play under Jackson and more football imo. Did we improve? the league position would suggest no compared to the season before. Both chairman are pretty good at blaming the previous managers for a variety of failures. These managers have no right to reply contractually wise. However both chairman forget that they chose to employ these managers in the first place. They set the criteria and budgets etc. they are also culpubable for any failings..... As i say this as to be the party line due to poor season ticket sales thus far. Fans need convincing. Why would that be? Are we all wrong? We will now be offered 'tit-bit's' of potential signings and rumour, of which i'll pay attention when they actually sign a contract. Most notably should be the fact that we were the 5th highests spenders and yet its to Parky's great credit that we managed to survive!! That must be down to the signings of Reed, Haworth, Atkinson, Smalley etc At least Rhodes acknowledges that the loans were mainly useless. However these were the current managers choices and not Jacksons....hmmm. VILLAGE BANTAM begins this headline with a good positive rallying call. However he spoils this by suggesting that some fans maybe looking foolish next year. By this logic does this mean he/she looks foolish now? We ALL want to be cheering success but can only do this when its actuality. Why would this be foolish? Despite all the resorces we nearly went down so why would we be cheering the mangers name? Those accused this season by others of been negative are in fact the positive one's in that they want us to progress and not accept mediocrity. To many pandoras box-types will accept everything untill its too late. I like ALL city fans will be cheering like crazy IF we achieve success next year and will have earned the right to do so. If however this isn't the case, how will you be feeling village bantam? It[/p][/quote]ps had lawn and rhodes been together when city were 22nd in the league after 10 games before winning promotion to the prem would we have ever got promotion?[/p][/quote]If you are giving credit to Jacko for only losing games by the odd goal in his 5 games in charge then surely you will give the same credit to PP? Only 7 of his 47 games in charge resulted in defeats by more than 1 goal. Two of those defeats were from teams in higher leagues one from league 1 and one from the championship. Of the remaining 5 defeats of more than 2 goals, one was against Crawley away, one against Rotherham away who were only 3 points off a play-off spot -and were handed two goals on a plate from Jonny Mc's howlers. And one against Cheltenham away who were in a play-off spot and needed to win to ensure they stayed there.[/p][/quote]One day Lonnie you might highlight a section of a post that yo agree on. That would be a positive. Instead it appears you focus in on things written by other posters that you feel demonstrates your argument or you one you can argue with. Thats how it looks anyway and i apologise if that isn't the case. Indeed you yourself elsewhere question PP's record/form,but now feel the need to defend it. The point you allude to was/is to point out the mis-representation by many on here that continually suggest that Jacksons team was getting 'hammered' this season. It wasn't. this was also part of a more attractive attempt to play football. Any manager can also attempt to shut-up shop and neglect the purpose of football i.e. to score more than the opposition in the hope of keeping the score down, sneaking a draw or even win. The main point that you bypass is that i felt that the team was starting to settle. Indeed we were seeing in patches the attempt to play football on the floor.....your early disregard for Jackson goes against your usual stance of wanting time......and echoes those of our chairman, which thus far has proved unsuccesful.[/p][/quote]Sorry to have to pick bits that I disagree with in your post dann but you know what a stickler I am for accuracy. 1 I often make a comment whereby I agree with what other posters have said. That's a fact dann, just go back to: 'lonniejockstrap says... 4:39pm Sat 12 May 12' on this very same article as an example. 2 I was are, and will remain in support of the need to keep managers for a period of years rather than months. So, regardless of how you wish to interpret my criticisms of Jacko's period of management I would have wished him to stay for a lot longer than he did in order to be in with a chance of developing his ideas and his team. I have also criticised Stuart's, Taylor's and as you correctly point out, PP's methods. How I can convince you that there is a world of difference between my making constructive -on the whole- criticism/comment and wanting a manager sacked is something I am obviously struggling to get across. Can you -once again purely out of the interest of accuracy- provide a quote from me ever saying that I wanted Jacko sacked or that he shouldn't be given time? I was not impressed with his time as 'interim manager' and didn't think his performance justified him getting the job when he effectively jumped the queue of the interviewee's. In fact, the opposite WAS the case. I felt extremely annoyed and let-down that he made so many changes to the 'foundations' of the Club and Team only to resign and leave what he had as his vision to somebody else to have to work with after such a short but not insignificant period in charge as regards budgets, organisation, personnel changes etc were concerned.[/p][/quote]ta for the reply. i haven't stated that you called for anyone to be sacked. indeed you may remember my praise for your solid defence of taylor. Your last part of the post is taking the official line however, and whilst your response maybe that that is what we have to be base everything on, often jobs become untenable. How many clubs have had three out of their last 4 managers resign? perhaps there are some things that don't go to press? I am obviously been 'flippant' here because to solely unquestinably follow the official party line is folly. Few other clubs have had that many resignations in such a short space of time. Indeed i wouldn't be surprised if no chairman in history has had all his managers resign/leave the club without been sacked like Lawn as. Indeed you should also perhaps question the state Taylor left the club in. Indeed there is a case that Taylors legacy directly not only Jackson (which it undoutedly did) but also continued through to Parky. Why not question the boards ability to keep managers after they have chosen them? they decide that they are the ideal candidate afterall. What goes on that they feel they must resign?[/p][/quote]What cracks me up on here is when you make an irrefutable point with facts it's simply ignored for idiots to carry on spouting rubbish. "indeed there is a case that Taylor's directly (effected it should say) directed not only Jackson but Parkinson's" So again. Why then is Parky keeping 9 out of 12 of those players and only 3 of his own? He and he alone has decided that 9 of the players he inherited are worthy of next year. And only 3 of his he has kept. So it doesn't add up does it? The fact is that with the fifth highest budget in the league we have finished 18th. Whoever signed who also doesn't matter when PP shows demonstrably that he rates 9 players who was at the club before his tenure. Quite simply he's failed. As ive said before though we only have 12 wanted players on the books so lets see who he signs and look forward to next season. I personally think Parkys ****. But I truely want him to prove me wrong. Badly wrong.[/p][/quote]Sorry Brian!! HE WONT!!. shaun from richmond
  • Score: 0

8:42pm Sun 13 May 12

Victor Clayton says...

but he might.
but he might. Victor Clayton
  • Score: 0

9:04pm Sun 13 May 12

340stopper says...

Victor Clayton wrote:
but he might.
He has to.
[quote][p][bold]Victor Clayton[/bold] wrote: but he might.[/p][/quote]He has to. 340stopper
  • Score: 0

9:46pm Sun 13 May 12

Victor Clayton says...

340stopper wrote:
Victor Clayton wrote:
but he might.
He has to.
I don't think even his biggest fan could disagree.
[quote][p][bold]340stopper[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Victor Clayton[/bold] wrote: but he might.[/p][/quote]He has to.[/p][/quote]I don't think even his biggest fan could disagree. Victor Clayton
  • Score: 0

11:37pm Sun 13 May 12

dannbradfc says...

Onebrianmitchell wrote:
dannbradfc wrote:
lonniejockstrap wrote:
dannbradfc wrote:
lonniejockstrap wrote:
dannbradfc wrote:
dannbradfc wrote:
My initial thoughts upon seeing the headline was SEASON TICKETS.

Rhodes has obviously been drinking from the same glass as Lawn.

One view of this is that he has to say these things to justify fans upset at last season renewing their tickets. Its taken Rhodes a long time to come out with this. Why didn't he support Lawns initial similar claims at the time and thus deflect some of the stick that Lawn got?

For everyone who has been crying out for a long term strategy for the club, well this is why its not happened.

Both chairman could see that after only 6 games that the squad were going to go down. Hardly an endoresement for a long term business plan is it?

I actually was prepared to give them more time. Indeed there were signs that the side were starting to gel but we'll actually never know. We only lost games by one goal under jackson and with just a couple of more players, one a central defender this may have been resolved. We certainly saw more attacking play under Jackson and more football imo.

Did we improve? the league position would suggest no compared to the season before. Both chairman are pretty good at blaming the previous managers for a variety of failures. These managers have no right to reply contractually wise. However both chairman forget that they chose to employ these managers in the first place. They set the criteria and budgets etc. they are also culpubable for any failings.....

As i say this as to be the party line due to poor season ticket sales thus far. Fans need convincing. Why would that be? Are we all wrong? We will now be offered 'tit-bit's' of potential signings and rumour, of which i'll pay attention when they actually sign a contract.

Most notably should be the fact that we were the 5th highests spenders and yet its to Parky's great credit that we managed to survive!! That must be down to the signings of Reed, Haworth, Atkinson, Smalley etc

At least Rhodes acknowledges that the loans were mainly useless. However these were the current managers choices and not Jacksons....hmmm.

VILLAGE BANTAM begins this headline with a good positive rallying call. However he spoils this by suggesting that some fans maybe looking foolish next year. By this logic does this mean he/she looks foolish now?
We ALL want to be cheering success but can only do this when its actuality. Why would this be foolish? Despite all the resorces we nearly went down so why would we be cheering the mangers name?

Those accused this season by others of been negative are in fact the positive one's in that they want us to progress and not accept mediocrity. To many pandoras box-types will accept everything untill its too late. I like ALL city fans will be cheering like crazy IF we achieve success next year and will have earned the right to do so. If however this isn't the case, how will you be feeling village bantam?

It
ps had lawn and rhodes been together when city were 22nd in the league after 10 games before winning promotion to the prem would we have ever got promotion?
If you are giving credit to Jacko for only losing games by the odd goal in his 5 games in charge then surely you will give the same credit to PP? Only 7 of his 47 games in charge resulted in defeats by more than 1 goal.

Two of those defeats were from teams in higher leagues one from league 1 and one from the championship.

Of the remaining 5 defeats of more than 2 goals, one was against Crawley away, one against Rotherham away who were only 3 points off a play-off spot -and were handed two goals on a plate from Jonny Mc's howlers. And one against Cheltenham away who were in a play-off spot and needed to win to ensure they stayed there.
One day Lonnie you might highlight a section of a post that yo agree on. That would be a positive. Instead it appears you focus in on things written by other posters that you feel demonstrates your argument or you one you can argue with. Thats how it looks anyway and i apologise if that isn't the case. Indeed you yourself elsewhere question PP's record/form,but now feel the need to defend it.

The point you allude to was/is to point out the mis-representation by many on here that continually suggest that Jacksons team was getting 'hammered' this season. It wasn't. this was also part of a more attractive attempt to play football. Any manager can also attempt to shut-up shop and neglect the purpose of football i.e. to score more than the opposition in the hope of keeping the score down, sneaking a draw or even win.

The main point that you bypass is that i felt that the team was starting to settle. Indeed we were seeing in patches the attempt to play football on the floor.....your early disregard for Jackson goes against your usual stance of wanting time......and echoes those of our chairman, which thus far has proved unsuccesful.
Sorry to have to pick bits that I disagree with in your post dann but you know what a stickler I am for accuracy.

1 I often make a comment whereby I agree with what other posters have said. That's a fact dann, just go back to: 'lonniejockstrap says...
4:39pm Sat 12 May 12' on this very same article as an example.

2 I was are, and will remain in support of the need to keep managers for a period of years rather than months. So, regardless of how you wish to interpret my criticisms of Jacko's period of management I would have wished him to stay for a lot longer than he did in order to be in with a chance of developing his ideas and his team. I have also criticised Stuart's, Taylor's and as you correctly point out, PP's methods. How I can convince you that there is a world of difference between my making constructive -on the whole- criticism/comment and wanting a manager sacked is something I am obviously struggling to get across. Can you -once again purely out of the interest of accuracy- provide a quote from me ever saying that I wanted Jacko sacked or that he shouldn't be given time? I was not impressed with his time as 'interim manager' and didn't think his performance justified him getting the job when he effectively jumped the queue of the interviewee's.

In fact, the opposite WAS the case. I felt extremely annoyed and let-down that he made so many changes to the 'foundations' of the Club and Team only to resign and leave what he had as his vision to somebody else to have to work with after such a short but not insignificant period in charge as regards budgets, organisation, personnel changes etc were concerned.
ta for the reply.

i haven't stated that you called for anyone to be sacked. indeed you may remember my praise for your solid defence of taylor.

Your last part of the post is taking the official line however, and whilst your response maybe that that is what we have to be base everything on, often jobs become untenable. How many clubs have had three out of their last 4 managers resign? perhaps there are some things that don't go to press? I am obviously been 'flippant' here because to solely unquestinably follow the official party line is folly.

Few other clubs have had that many resignations in such a short space of time. Indeed i wouldn't be surprised if no chairman in history has had all his managers resign/leave the club without been sacked like Lawn as.

Indeed you should also perhaps question the state Taylor left the club in.

Indeed there is a case that Taylors legacy directly not only Jackson (which it undoutedly did) but also continued through to Parky.

Why not question the boards ability to keep managers after they have chosen them? they decide that they are the ideal candidate afterall. What goes on that they feel they must resign?
What cracks me up on here is when you make an irrefutable point with facts it's simply ignored for idiots to carry on spouting rubbish.

"indeed there is a case that Taylor's directly (effected it should say) directed not only Jackson but Parkinson's"

So again. Why then is Parky keeping 9 out of 12 of those players and only 3 of his own?

He and he alone has decided that 9 of the players he inherited are worthy of next year. And only 3 of his he has kept. So it doesn't add up does it?

The fact is that with the fifth highest budget in the league we have finished 18th.

Whoever signed who also doesn't matter when PP shows demonstrably that he rates 9 players who was at the club before his tenure.

Quite simply he's failed.

As ive said before though we only have 12 wanted players on the books so lets see who he signs and look forward to next season.

I personally think Parkys ****. But I truely want him to prove me wrong. Badly wrong.
which "irrefutable" fact are you talking about brian?

i agree with the latter of your post but not quite getting why you use my quote nor the context.

For what its worth: jacksons tenure was directly effeected by the squad Taylor had built (?). The wingless wonders for one meant that Jackson had to radically change things to ensure a more balanced attacking side. Indeed whilst the chairman chose to now criticise Jackson i feel he was actually attempting to follow their remit e.g. we were promised via Lawn a more exciting/entertainin
g attacking side. This was quickly abandoned and is now been criticised.

Simarlarly after having been praised by Rhodes and Lawn, Christies signings/finds are now also been criticised.

Parky was thus also inheriting a side that had barely come together and was still in the stages of developing but instead of allowing this to happen or be assesed he immediately began to dismantle it, whether by instruction or otherwise. this does not defend Parky's negative tactics, disruptive team selection and under-whelming all round performance and as you put it failure.

It does though highlight poor leadership and strategy from the very top.

Ironically as you point out it was alot to of the squad that was deemed not good enough by the chairmen that ended up saving our 'butts' somewhat. e.g. Branston, Wells, Jones....

and as you point out not many of his own signings finished the season. Many fans, myself included also feel that the Scottish lads were better than the majority of players tried in their place. waste of resources, poor leadership and judgement.

Again ironic that it would now look like the team that will be assembled next year would be on the lines of what fans were and have been asking for all along. e.g. a smaller squad, less loans, build upon what is already here etc....

an abysmally wasteful season that has a detrimental knock-on effect. Thus rather than be one year on with a younger albeit now more experienced side and developing stronger squad we find ourselves reverting back in time somewhat.....

all in all poor chairmanship/leaders
hip enacted by a poor under-acheivement by the manager thus far.....
[quote][p][bold]Onebrianmitchell[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dannbradfc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lonniejockstrap[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dannbradfc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lonniejockstrap[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dannbradfc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dannbradfc[/bold] wrote: My initial thoughts upon seeing the headline was SEASON TICKETS. Rhodes has obviously been drinking from the same glass as Lawn. One view of this is that he has to say these things to justify fans upset at last season renewing their tickets. Its taken Rhodes a long time to come out with this. Why didn't he support Lawns initial similar claims at the time and thus deflect some of the stick that Lawn got? For everyone who has been crying out for a long term strategy for the club, well this is why its not happened. Both chairman could see that after only 6 games that the squad were going to go down. Hardly an endoresement for a long term business plan is it? I actually was prepared to give them more time. Indeed there were signs that the side were starting to gel but we'll actually never know. We only lost games by one goal under jackson and with just a couple of more players, one a central defender this may have been resolved. We certainly saw more attacking play under Jackson and more football imo. Did we improve? the league position would suggest no compared to the season before. Both chairman are pretty good at blaming the previous managers for a variety of failures. These managers have no right to reply contractually wise. However both chairman forget that they chose to employ these managers in the first place. They set the criteria and budgets etc. they are also culpubable for any failings..... As i say this as to be the party line due to poor season ticket sales thus far. Fans need convincing. Why would that be? Are we all wrong? We will now be offered 'tit-bit's' of potential signings and rumour, of which i'll pay attention when they actually sign a contract. Most notably should be the fact that we were the 5th highests spenders and yet its to Parky's great credit that we managed to survive!! That must be down to the signings of Reed, Haworth, Atkinson, Smalley etc At least Rhodes acknowledges that the loans were mainly useless. However these were the current managers choices and not Jacksons....hmmm. VILLAGE BANTAM begins this headline with a good positive rallying call. However he spoils this by suggesting that some fans maybe looking foolish next year. By this logic does this mean he/she looks foolish now? We ALL want to be cheering success but can only do this when its actuality. Why would this be foolish? Despite all the resorces we nearly went down so why would we be cheering the mangers name? Those accused this season by others of been negative are in fact the positive one's in that they want us to progress and not accept mediocrity. To many pandoras box-types will accept everything untill its too late. I like ALL city fans will be cheering like crazy IF we achieve success next year and will have earned the right to do so. If however this isn't the case, how will you be feeling village bantam? It[/p][/quote]ps had lawn and rhodes been together when city were 22nd in the league after 10 games before winning promotion to the prem would we have ever got promotion?[/p][/quote]If you are giving credit to Jacko for only losing games by the odd goal in his 5 games in charge then surely you will give the same credit to PP? Only 7 of his 47 games in charge resulted in defeats by more than 1 goal. Two of those defeats were from teams in higher leagues one from league 1 and one from the championship. Of the remaining 5 defeats of more than 2 goals, one was against Crawley away, one against Rotherham away who were only 3 points off a play-off spot -and were handed two goals on a plate from Jonny Mc's howlers. And one against Cheltenham away who were in a play-off spot and needed to win to ensure they stayed there.[/p][/quote]One day Lonnie you might highlight a section of a post that yo agree on. That would be a positive. Instead it appears you focus in on things written by other posters that you feel demonstrates your argument or you one you can argue with. Thats how it looks anyway and i apologise if that isn't the case. Indeed you yourself elsewhere question PP's record/form,but now feel the need to defend it. The point you allude to was/is to point out the mis-representation by many on here that continually suggest that Jacksons team was getting 'hammered' this season. It wasn't. this was also part of a more attractive attempt to play football. Any manager can also attempt to shut-up shop and neglect the purpose of football i.e. to score more than the opposition in the hope of keeping the score down, sneaking a draw or even win. The main point that you bypass is that i felt that the team was starting to settle. Indeed we were seeing in patches the attempt to play football on the floor.....your early disregard for Jackson goes against your usual stance of wanting time......and echoes those of our chairman, which thus far has proved unsuccesful.[/p][/quote]Sorry to have to pick bits that I disagree with in your post dann but you know what a stickler I am for accuracy. 1 I often make a comment whereby I agree with what other posters have said. That's a fact dann, just go back to: 'lonniejockstrap says... 4:39pm Sat 12 May 12' on this very same article as an example. 2 I was are, and will remain in support of the need to keep managers for a period of years rather than months. So, regardless of how you wish to interpret my criticisms of Jacko's period of management I would have wished him to stay for a lot longer than he did in order to be in with a chance of developing his ideas and his team. I have also criticised Stuart's, Taylor's and as you correctly point out, PP's methods. How I can convince you that there is a world of difference between my making constructive -on the whole- criticism/comment and wanting a manager sacked is something I am obviously struggling to get across. Can you -once again purely out of the interest of accuracy- provide a quote from me ever saying that I wanted Jacko sacked or that he shouldn't be given time? I was not impressed with his time as 'interim manager' and didn't think his performance justified him getting the job when he effectively jumped the queue of the interviewee's. In fact, the opposite WAS the case. I felt extremely annoyed and let-down that he made so many changes to the 'foundations' of the Club and Team only to resign and leave what he had as his vision to somebody else to have to work with after such a short but not insignificant period in charge as regards budgets, organisation, personnel changes etc were concerned.[/p][/quote]ta for the reply. i haven't stated that you called for anyone to be sacked. indeed you may remember my praise for your solid defence of taylor. Your last part of the post is taking the official line however, and whilst your response maybe that that is what we have to be base everything on, often jobs become untenable. How many clubs have had three out of their last 4 managers resign? perhaps there are some things that don't go to press? I am obviously been 'flippant' here because to solely unquestinably follow the official party line is folly. Few other clubs have had that many resignations in such a short space of time. Indeed i wouldn't be surprised if no chairman in history has had all his managers resign/leave the club without been sacked like Lawn as. Indeed you should also perhaps question the state Taylor left the club in. Indeed there is a case that Taylors legacy directly not only Jackson (which it undoutedly did) but also continued through to Parky. Why not question the boards ability to keep managers after they have chosen them? they decide that they are the ideal candidate afterall. What goes on that they feel they must resign?[/p][/quote]What cracks me up on here is when you make an irrefutable point with facts it's simply ignored for idiots to carry on spouting rubbish. "indeed there is a case that Taylor's directly (effected it should say) directed not only Jackson but Parkinson's" So again. Why then is Parky keeping 9 out of 12 of those players and only 3 of his own? He and he alone has decided that 9 of the players he inherited are worthy of next year. And only 3 of his he has kept. So it doesn't add up does it? The fact is that with the fifth highest budget in the league we have finished 18th. Whoever signed who also doesn't matter when PP shows demonstrably that he rates 9 players who was at the club before his tenure. Quite simply he's failed. As ive said before though we only have 12 wanted players on the books so lets see who he signs and look forward to next season. I personally think Parkys ****. But I truely want him to prove me wrong. Badly wrong.[/p][/quote]which "irrefutable" fact are you talking about brian? i agree with the latter of your post but not quite getting why you use my quote nor the context. For what its worth: jacksons tenure was directly effeected by the squad Taylor had built (?). The wingless wonders for one meant that Jackson had to radically change things to ensure a more balanced attacking side. Indeed whilst the chairman chose to now criticise Jackson i feel he was actually attempting to follow their remit e.g. we were promised via Lawn a more exciting/entertainin g attacking side. This was quickly abandoned and is now been criticised. Simarlarly after having been praised by Rhodes and Lawn, Christies signings/finds are now also been criticised. Parky was thus also inheriting a side that had barely come together and was still in the stages of developing but instead of allowing this to happen or be assesed he immediately began to dismantle it, whether by instruction or otherwise. this does not defend Parky's negative tactics, disruptive team selection and under-whelming all round performance and as you put it failure. It does though highlight poor leadership and strategy from the very top. Ironically as you point out it was alot to of the squad that was deemed not good enough by the chairmen that ended up saving our 'butts' somewhat. e.g. Branston, Wells, Jones.... and as you point out not many of his own signings finished the season. Many fans, myself included also feel that the Scottish lads were better than the majority of players tried in their place. waste of resources, poor leadership and judgement. Again ironic that it would now look like the team that will be assembled next year would be on the lines of what fans were and have been asking for all along. e.g. a smaller squad, less loans, build upon what is already here etc.... an abysmally wasteful season that has a detrimental knock-on effect. Thus rather than be one year on with a younger albeit now more experienced side and developing stronger squad we find ourselves reverting back in time somewhat..... all in all poor chairmanship/leaders hip enacted by a poor under-acheivement by the manager thus far..... dannbradfc
  • Score: 0

1:20am Mon 14 May 12

lonniejockstrap says...

dannbradfc wrote:
lonniejockstrap wrote:
dannbradfc wrote:
lonniejockstrap wrote:
dannbradfc wrote:
dannbradfc wrote:
My initial thoughts upon seeing the headline was SEASON TICKETS.

Rhodes has obviously been drinking from the same glass as Lawn.

One view of this is that he has to say these things to justify fans upset at last season renewing their tickets. Its taken Rhodes a long time to come out with this. Why didn't he support Lawns initial similar claims at the time and thus deflect some of the stick that Lawn got?

For everyone who has been crying out for a long term strategy for the club, well this is why its not happened.

Both chairman could see that after only 6 games that the squad were going to go down. Hardly an endoresement for a long term business plan is it?

I actually was prepared to give them more time. Indeed there were signs that the side were starting to gel but we'll actually never know. We only lost games by one goal under jackson and with just a couple of more players, one a central defender this may have been resolved. We certainly saw more attacking play under Jackson and more football imo.

Did we improve? the league position would suggest no compared to the season before. Both chairman are pretty good at blaming the previous managers for a variety of failures. These managers have no right to reply contractually wise. However both chairman forget that they chose to employ these managers in the first place. They set the criteria and budgets etc. they are also culpubable for any failings.....

As i say this as to be the party line due to poor season ticket sales thus far. Fans need convincing. Why would that be? Are we all wrong? We will now be offered 'tit-bit's' of potential signings and rumour, of which i'll pay attention when they actually sign a contract.

Most notably should be the fact that we were the 5th highests spenders and yet its to Parky's great credit that we managed to survive!! That must be down to the signings of Reed, Haworth, Atkinson, Smalley etc

At least Rhodes acknowledges that the loans were mainly useless. However these were the current managers choices and not Jacksons....hmmm.

VILLAGE BANTAM begins this headline with a good positive rallying call. However he spoils this by suggesting that some fans maybe looking foolish next year. By this logic does this mean he/she looks foolish now?
We ALL want to be cheering success but can only do this when its actuality. Why would this be foolish? Despite all the resorces we nearly went down so why would we be cheering the mangers name?

Those accused this season by others of been negative are in fact the positive one's in that they want us to progress and not accept mediocrity. To many pandoras box-types will accept everything untill its too late. I like ALL city fans will be cheering like crazy IF we achieve success next year and will have earned the right to do so. If however this isn't the case, how will you be feeling village bantam?

It
ps had lawn and rhodes been together when city were 22nd in the league after 10 games before winning promotion to the prem would we have ever got promotion?
If you are giving credit to Jacko for only losing games by the odd goal in his 5 games in charge then surely you will give the same credit to PP? Only 7 of his 47 games in charge resulted in defeats by more than 1 goal.

Two of those defeats were from teams in higher leagues one from league 1 and one from the championship.

Of the remaining 5 defeats of more than 2 goals, one was against Crawley away, one against Rotherham away who were only 3 points off a play-off spot -and were handed two goals on a plate from Jonny Mc's howlers. And one against Cheltenham away who were in a play-off spot and needed to win to ensure they stayed there.
One day Lonnie you might highlight a section of a post that yo agree on. That would be a positive. Instead it appears you focus in on things written by other posters that you feel demonstrates your argument or you one you can argue with. Thats how it looks anyway and i apologise if that isn't the case. Indeed you yourself elsewhere question PP's record/form,but now feel the need to defend it.

The point you allude to was/is to point out the mis-representation by many on here that continually suggest that Jacksons team was getting 'hammered' this season. It wasn't. this was also part of a more attractive attempt to play football. Any manager can also attempt to shut-up shop and neglect the purpose of football i.e. to score more than the opposition in the hope of keeping the score down, sneaking a draw or even win.

The main point that you bypass is that i felt that the team was starting to settle. Indeed we were seeing in patches the attempt to play football on the floor.....your early disregard for Jackson goes against your usual stance of wanting time......and echoes those of our chairman, which thus far has proved unsuccesful.
Sorry to have to pick bits that I disagree with in your post dann but you know what a stickler I am for accuracy.

1 I often make a comment whereby I agree with what other posters have said. That's a fact dann, just go back to: 'lonniejockstrap says...
4:39pm Sat 12 May 12' on this very same article as an example.

2 I was are, and will remain in support of the need to keep managers for a period of years rather than months. So, regardless of how you wish to interpret my criticisms of Jacko's period of management I would have wished him to stay for a lot longer than he did in order to be in with a chance of developing his ideas and his team. I have also criticised Stuart's, Taylor's and as you correctly point out, PP's methods. How I can convince you that there is a world of difference between my making constructive -on the whole- criticism/comment and wanting a manager sacked is something I am obviously struggling to get across. Can you -once again purely out of the interest of accuracy- provide a quote from me ever saying that I wanted Jacko sacked or that he shouldn't be given time? I was not impressed with his time as 'interim manager' and didn't think his performance justified him getting the job when he effectively jumped the queue of the interviewee's.

In fact, the opposite WAS the case. I felt extremely annoyed and let-down that he made so many changes to the 'foundations' of the Club and Team only to resign and leave what he had as his vision to somebody else to have to work with after such a short but not insignificant period in charge as regards budgets, organisation, personnel changes etc were concerned.
ta for the reply.

i haven't stated that you called for anyone to be sacked. indeed you may remember my praise for your solid defence of taylor.

Your last part of the post is taking the official line however, and whilst your response maybe that that is what we have to be base everything on, often jobs become untenable. How many clubs have had three out of their last 4 managers resign? perhaps there are some things that don't go to press? I am obviously been 'flippant' here because to solely unquestinably follow the official party line is folly.

Few other clubs have had that many resignations in such a short space of time. Indeed i wouldn't be surprised if no chairman in history has had all his managers resign/leave the club without been sacked like Lawn as.

Indeed you should also perhaps question the state Taylor left the club in.

Indeed there is a case that Taylors legacy directly not only Jackson (which it undoutedly did) but also continued through to Parky.

Why not question the boards ability to keep managers after they have chosen them? they decide that they are the ideal candidate afterall. What goes on that they feel they must resign?
Dann, you seem to be claiming that the managers were sacked? But the managers themselves have been quoted as saying THEY chose to leave -at least Taylor and McCall have- so it appears you will refuse to accept this regardless of the evidence.

Of course there is a case that Taylor's legacy could have affected the follow on managers, that is the whole point of me saying we should STOP the changing of managers on a regular basis. Why am I having such difficulty in getting that message across to you? Am I really that poor at communicating? But, lets be fair here dann, you haven't been putting up a case for keeping and strongly backing the likes of Taylor or PP have you? So I think you should be a little less critical of Rhodes and Lawn even if they had forced out the managers -which you still haven't managed to provide evidence for- because that is in effect what you agree with!

I HAVE -many times- 'questioned' the inability to keep managers. I appear to be incapable of communicating with you and that is becoming more and more obvious. I say this because after all the posts I have written and that you have read of me complaining about going through managers at the rate we do and it being -IMO- the most significant reason for our failure to progress up the league you fail to interpret that as a 'question' or a criticism of what strategy the board is following!

You ask 'What goes on that they feel they must resign?'. I have to say that question, from you, just makes me feel you are either loosing your memory or you are just becoming a wind-up-merchant. If you don't know the answer to the question you pose then read some of your own posts about what you thought of Taylor and think of PP as managers, the 'entertainment' on show, the danger of relegation, the falling attendances, booing from the crowd, the failure to improve on the manager who went before them, insults directed at them -and the Chairmen for appointing them in the first place- and many other 'negatives that you have pointed out over recent months.

Do you really not expect the managers to get a roasting every now and again from the board? Not even when we are doing so poorly and the manager was telling them only a short while ago how good they were and how their plans were going to work so well? You think it's quite all right for fans to abuse, criticise publicly and call for managers to be sacked but appear to be suggesting that people who have invested millions into the Club should be castigated because they have a go at the manager for not delivering and that manager MIGHT then take the huff and resign? It's a big boys world dann, and if Jacko, Taylor or even Stuart want to turn around in the future and claim they left because the board upset them then I say tough! That's sometimes what you have to put up with when you are not delivering the goods. And if that caused them to resign instead of sticking at it until they got the sack then that was THEIR choice. BUT!!!, also try to understand that they are also under tremendous pressure -it is reported that Stuart was physically sick after an away defeat at Morecambe- and that along with no longer being wanted by the supporters and no longer enjoying the job because they are not wanted can also be reasons for managers resigning. And there's me thinking that these things were so obvious!
[quote][p][bold]dannbradfc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lonniejockstrap[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dannbradfc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lonniejockstrap[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dannbradfc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dannbradfc[/bold] wrote: My initial thoughts upon seeing the headline was SEASON TICKETS. Rhodes has obviously been drinking from the same glass as Lawn. One view of this is that he has to say these things to justify fans upset at last season renewing their tickets. Its taken Rhodes a long time to come out with this. Why didn't he support Lawns initial similar claims at the time and thus deflect some of the stick that Lawn got? For everyone who has been crying out for a long term strategy for the club, well this is why its not happened. Both chairman could see that after only 6 games that the squad were going to go down. Hardly an endoresement for a long term business plan is it? I actually was prepared to give them more time. Indeed there were signs that the side were starting to gel but we'll actually never know. We only lost games by one goal under jackson and with just a couple of more players, one a central defender this may have been resolved. We certainly saw more attacking play under Jackson and more football imo. Did we improve? the league position would suggest no compared to the season before. Both chairman are pretty good at blaming the previous managers for a variety of failures. These managers have no right to reply contractually wise. However both chairman forget that they chose to employ these managers in the first place. They set the criteria and budgets etc. they are also culpubable for any failings..... As i say this as to be the party line due to poor season ticket sales thus far. Fans need convincing. Why would that be? Are we all wrong? We will now be offered 'tit-bit's' of potential signings and rumour, of which i'll pay attention when they actually sign a contract. Most notably should be the fact that we were the 5th highests spenders and yet its to Parky's great credit that we managed to survive!! That must be down to the signings of Reed, Haworth, Atkinson, Smalley etc At least Rhodes acknowledges that the loans were mainly useless. However these were the current managers choices and not Jacksons....hmmm. VILLAGE BANTAM begins this headline with a good positive rallying call. However he spoils this by suggesting that some fans maybe looking foolish next year. By this logic does this mean he/she looks foolish now? We ALL want to be cheering success but can only do this when its actuality. Why would this be foolish? Despite all the resorces we nearly went down so why would we be cheering the mangers name? Those accused this season by others of been negative are in fact the positive one's in that they want us to progress and not accept mediocrity. To many pandoras box-types will accept everything untill its too late. I like ALL city fans will be cheering like crazy IF we achieve success next year and will have earned the right to do so. If however this isn't the case, how will you be feeling village bantam? It[/p][/quote]ps had lawn and rhodes been together when city were 22nd in the league after 10 games before winning promotion to the prem would we have ever got promotion?[/p][/quote]If you are giving credit to Jacko for only losing games by the odd goal in his 5 games in charge then surely you will give the same credit to PP? Only 7 of his 47 games in charge resulted in defeats by more than 1 goal. Two of those defeats were from teams in higher leagues one from league 1 and one from the championship. Of the remaining 5 defeats of more than 2 goals, one was against Crawley away, one against Rotherham away who were only 3 points off a play-off spot -and were handed two goals on a plate from Jonny Mc's howlers. And one against Cheltenham away who were in a play-off spot and needed to win to ensure they stayed there.[/p][/quote]One day Lonnie you might highlight a section of a post that yo agree on. That would be a positive. Instead it appears you focus in on things written by other posters that you feel demonstrates your argument or you one you can argue with. Thats how it looks anyway and i apologise if that isn't the case. Indeed you yourself elsewhere question PP's record/form,but now feel the need to defend it. The point you allude to was/is to point out the mis-representation by many on here that continually suggest that Jacksons team was getting 'hammered' this season. It wasn't. this was also part of a more attractive attempt to play football. Any manager can also attempt to shut-up shop and neglect the purpose of football i.e. to score more than the opposition in the hope of keeping the score down, sneaking a draw or even win. The main point that you bypass is that i felt that the team was starting to settle. Indeed we were seeing in patches the attempt to play football on the floor.....your early disregard for Jackson goes against your usual stance of wanting time......and echoes those of our chairman, which thus far has proved unsuccesful.[/p][/quote]Sorry to have to pick bits that I disagree with in your post dann but you know what a stickler I am for accuracy. 1 I often make a comment whereby I agree with what other posters have said. That's a fact dann, just go back to: 'lonniejockstrap says... 4:39pm Sat 12 May 12' on this very same article as an example. 2 I was are, and will remain in support of the need to keep managers for a period of years rather than months. So, regardless of how you wish to interpret my criticisms of Jacko's period of management I would have wished him to stay for a lot longer than he did in order to be in with a chance of developing his ideas and his team. I have also criticised Stuart's, Taylor's and as you correctly point out, PP's methods. How I can convince you that there is a world of difference between my making constructive -on the whole- criticism/comment and wanting a manager sacked is something I am obviously struggling to get across. Can you -once again purely out of the interest of accuracy- provide a quote from me ever saying that I wanted Jacko sacked or that he shouldn't be given time? I was not impressed with his time as 'interim manager' and didn't think his performance justified him getting the job when he effectively jumped the queue of the interviewee's. In fact, the opposite WAS the case. I felt extremely annoyed and let-down that he made so many changes to the 'foundations' of the Club and Team only to resign and leave what he had as his vision to somebody else to have to work with after such a short but not insignificant period in charge as regards budgets, organisation, personnel changes etc were concerned.[/p][/quote]ta for the reply. i haven't stated that you called for anyone to be sacked. indeed you may remember my praise for your solid defence of taylor. Your last part of the post is taking the official line however, and whilst your response maybe that that is what we have to be base everything on, often jobs become untenable. How many clubs have had three out of their last 4 managers resign? perhaps there are some things that don't go to press? I am obviously been 'flippant' here because to solely unquestinably follow the official party line is folly. Few other clubs have had that many resignations in such a short space of time. Indeed i wouldn't be surprised if no chairman in history has had all his managers resign/leave the club without been sacked like Lawn as. Indeed you should also perhaps question the state Taylor left the club in. Indeed there is a case that Taylors legacy directly not only Jackson (which it undoutedly did) but also continued through to Parky. Why not question the boards ability to keep managers after they have chosen them? they decide that they are the ideal candidate afterall. What goes on that they feel they must resign?[/p][/quote]Dann, you seem to be claiming that the managers were sacked? But the managers themselves have been quoted as saying THEY chose to leave -at least Taylor and McCall have- so it appears you will refuse to accept this regardless of the evidence. Of course there is a case that Taylor's legacy could have affected the follow on managers, that is the whole point of me saying we should STOP the changing of managers on a regular basis. Why am I having such difficulty in getting that message across to you? Am I really that poor at communicating? But, lets be fair here dann, you haven't been putting up a case for keeping and strongly backing the likes of Taylor or PP have you? So I think you should be a little less critical of Rhodes and Lawn even if they had forced out the managers -which you still haven't managed to provide evidence for- because that is in effect what you agree with! I HAVE -many times- 'questioned' the inability to keep managers. I appear to be incapable of communicating with you and that is becoming more and more obvious. I say this because after all the posts I have written and that you have read of me complaining about going through managers at the rate we do and it being -IMO- the most significant reason for our failure to progress up the league you fail to interpret that as a 'question' or a criticism of what strategy the board is following! You ask 'What goes on that they feel they must resign?'. I have to say that question, from you, just makes me feel you are either loosing your memory or you are just becoming a wind-up-merchant. If you don't know the answer to the question you pose then read some of your own posts about what you thought of Taylor and think of PP as managers, the 'entertainment' on show, the danger of relegation, the falling attendances, booing from the crowd, the failure to improve on the manager who went before them, insults directed at them -and the Chairmen for appointing them in the first place- and many other 'negatives that you have pointed out over recent months. Do you really not expect the managers to get a roasting every now and again from the board? Not even when we are doing so poorly and the manager was telling them only a short while ago how good they were and how their plans were going to work so well? You think it's quite all right for fans to abuse, criticise publicly and call for managers to be sacked but appear to be suggesting that people who have invested millions into the Club should be castigated because they have a go at the manager for not delivering and that manager MIGHT then take the huff and resign? It's a big boys world dann, and if Jacko, Taylor or even Stuart want to turn around in the future and claim they left because the board upset them then I say tough! That's sometimes what you have to put up with when you are not delivering the goods. And if that caused them to resign instead of sticking at it until they got the sack then that was THEIR choice. BUT!!!, also try to understand that they are also under tremendous pressure -it is reported that Stuart was physically sick after an away defeat at Morecambe- and that along with no longer being wanted by the supporters and no longer enjoying the job because they are not wanted can also be reasons for managers resigning. And there's me thinking that these things were so obvious! lonniejockstrap
  • Score: 0

9:18am Mon 14 May 12

dannbradfc says...

lonniejockstrap wrote:
dannbradfc wrote:
lonniejockstrap wrote:
dannbradfc wrote:
lonniejockstrap wrote:
dannbradfc wrote:
dannbradfc wrote: My initial thoughts upon seeing the headline was SEASON TICKETS. Rhodes has obviously been drinking from the same glass as Lawn. One view of this is that he has to say these things to justify fans upset at last season renewing their tickets. Its taken Rhodes a long time to come out with this. Why didn't he support Lawns initial similar claims at the time and thus deflect some of the stick that Lawn got? For everyone who has been crying out for a long term strategy for the club, well this is why its not happened. Both chairman could see that after only 6 games that the squad were going to go down. Hardly an endoresement for a long term business plan is it? I actually was prepared to give them more time. Indeed there were signs that the side were starting to gel but we'll actually never know. We only lost games by one goal under jackson and with just a couple of more players, one a central defender this may have been resolved. We certainly saw more attacking play under Jackson and more football imo. Did we improve? the league position would suggest no compared to the season before. Both chairman are pretty good at blaming the previous managers for a variety of failures. These managers have no right to reply contractually wise. However both chairman forget that they chose to employ these managers in the first place. They set the criteria and budgets etc. they are also culpubable for any failings..... As i say this as to be the party line due to poor season ticket sales thus far. Fans need convincing. Why would that be? Are we all wrong? We will now be offered 'tit-bit's' of potential signings and rumour, of which i'll pay attention when they actually sign a contract. Most notably should be the fact that we were the 5th highests spenders and yet its to Parky's great credit that we managed to survive!! That must be down to the signings of Reed, Haworth, Atkinson, Smalley etc At least Rhodes acknowledges that the loans were mainly useless. However these were the current managers choices and not Jacksons....hmmm. VILLAGE BANTAM begins this headline with a good positive rallying call. However he spoils this by suggesting that some fans maybe looking foolish next year. By this logic does this mean he/she looks foolish now? We ALL want to be cheering success but can only do this when its actuality. Why would this be foolish? Despite all the resorces we nearly went down so why would we be cheering the mangers name? Those accused this season by others of been negative are in fact the positive one's in that they want us to progress and not accept mediocrity. To many pandoras box-types will accept everything untill its too late. I like ALL city fans will be cheering like crazy IF we achieve success next year and will have earned the right to do so. If however this isn't the case, how will you be feeling village bantam? It
ps had lawn and rhodes been together when city were 22nd in the league after 10 games before winning promotion to the prem would we have ever got promotion?
If you are giving credit to Jacko for only losing games by the odd goal in his 5 games in charge then surely you will give the same credit to PP? Only 7 of his 47 games in charge resulted in defeats by more than 1 goal. Two of those defeats were from teams in higher leagues one from league 1 and one from the championship. Of the remaining 5 defeats of more than 2 goals, one was against Crawley away, one against Rotherham away who were only 3 points off a play-off spot -and were handed two goals on a plate from Jonny Mc's howlers. And one against Cheltenham away who were in a play-off spot and needed to win to ensure they stayed there.
One day Lonnie you might highlight a section of a post that yo agree on. That would be a positive. Instead it appears you focus in on things written by other posters that you feel demonstrates your argument or you one you can argue with. Thats how it looks anyway and i apologise if that isn't the case. Indeed you yourself elsewhere question PP's record/form,but now feel the need to defend it. The point you allude to was/is to point out the mis-representation by many on here that continually suggest that Jacksons team was getting 'hammered' this season. It wasn't. this was also part of a more attractive attempt to play football. Any manager can also attempt to shut-up shop and neglect the purpose of football i.e. to score more than the opposition in the hope of keeping the score down, sneaking a draw or even win. The main point that you bypass is that i felt that the team was starting to settle. Indeed we were seeing in patches the attempt to play football on the floor.....your early disregard for Jackson goes against your usual stance of wanting time......and echoes those of our chairman, which thus far has proved unsuccesful.
Sorry to have to pick bits that I disagree with in your post dann but you know what a stickler I am for accuracy. 1 I often make a comment whereby I agree with what other posters have said. That's a fact dann, just go back to: 'lonniejockstrap says... 4:39pm Sat 12 May 12' on this very same article as an example. 2 I was are, and will remain in support of the need to keep managers for a period of years rather than months. So, regardless of how you wish to interpret my criticisms of Jacko's period of management I would have wished him to stay for a lot longer than he did in order to be in with a chance of developing his ideas and his team. I have also criticised Stuart's, Taylor's and as you correctly point out, PP's methods. How I can convince you that there is a world of difference between my making constructive -on the whole- criticism/comment and wanting a manager sacked is something I am obviously struggling to get across. Can you -once again purely out of the interest of accuracy- provide a quote from me ever saying that I wanted Jacko sacked or that he shouldn't be given time? I was not impressed with his time as 'interim manager' and didn't think his performance justified him getting the job when he effectively jumped the queue of the interviewee's. In fact, the opposite WAS the case. I felt extremely annoyed and let-down that he made so many changes to the 'foundations' of the Club and Team only to resign and leave what he had as his vision to somebody else to have to work with after such a short but not insignificant period in charge as regards budgets, organisation, personnel changes etc were concerned.
ta for the reply. i haven't stated that you called for anyone to be sacked. indeed you may remember my praise for your solid defence of taylor. Your last part of the post is taking the official line however, and whilst your response maybe that that is what we have to be base everything on, often jobs become untenable. How many clubs have had three out of their last 4 managers resign? perhaps there are some things that don't go to press? I am obviously been 'flippant' here because to solely unquestinably follow the official party line is folly. Few other clubs have had that many resignations in such a short space of time. Indeed i wouldn't be surprised if no chairman in history has had all his managers resign/leave the club without been sacked like Lawn as. Indeed you should also perhaps question the state Taylor left the club in. Indeed there is a case that Taylors legacy directly not only Jackson (which it undoutedly did) but also continued through to Parky. Why not question the boards ability to keep managers after they have chosen them? they decide that they are the ideal candidate afterall. What goes on that they feel they must resign?
Dann, you seem to be claiming that the managers were sacked? But the managers themselves have been quoted as saying THEY chose to leave -at least Taylor and McCall have- so it appears you will refuse to accept this regardless of the evidence. Of course there is a case that Taylor's legacy could have affected the follow on managers, that is the whole point of me saying we should STOP the changing of managers on a regular basis. Why am I having such difficulty in getting that message across to you? Am I really that poor at communicating? But, lets be fair here dann, you haven't been putting up a case for keeping and strongly backing the likes of Taylor or PP have you? So I think you should be a little less critical of Rhodes and Lawn even if they had forced out the managers -which you still haven't managed to provide evidence for- because that is in effect what you agree with! I HAVE -many times- 'questioned' the inability to keep managers. I appear to be incapable of communicating with you and that is becoming more and more obvious. I say this because after all the posts I have written and that you have read of me complaining about going through managers at the rate we do and it being -IMO- the most significant reason for our failure to progress up the league you fail to interpret that as a 'question' or a criticism of what strategy the board is following! You ask 'What goes on that they feel they must resign?'. I have to say that question, from you, just makes me feel you are either loosing your memory or you are just becoming a wind-up-merchant. If you don't know the answer to the question you pose then read some of your own posts about what you thought of Taylor and think of PP as managers, the 'entertainment' on show, the danger of relegation, the falling attendances, booing from the crowd, the failure to improve on the manager who went before them, insults directed at them -and the Chairmen for appointing them in the first place- and many other 'negatives that you have pointed out over recent months. Do you really not expect the managers to get a roasting every now and again from the board? Not even when we are doing so poorly and the manager was telling them only a short while ago how good they were and how their plans were going to work so well? You think it's quite all right for fans to abuse, criticise publicly and call for managers to be sacked but appear to be suggesting that people who have invested millions into the Club should be castigated because they have a go at the manager for not delivering and that manager MIGHT then take the huff and resign? It's a big boys world dann, and if Jacko, Taylor or even Stuart want to turn around in the future and claim they left because the board upset them then I say tough! That's sometimes what you have to put up with when you are not delivering the goods. And if that caused them to resign instead of sticking at it until they got the sack then that was THEIR choice. BUT!!!, also try to understand that they are also under tremendous pressure -it is reported that Stuart was physically sick after an away defeat at Morecambe- and that along with no longer being wanted by the supporters and no longer enjoying the job because they are not wanted can also be reasons for managers resigning. And there's me thinking that these things were so obvious!
You've got it completely wrong. I'm arguing WHY so many managers felt the need to resign. NOWHERE DO I IMPLY THEY WERE SACKED. Have you actually read my response? I know they all resigned and asked you why this was or could be. YOU are clearly not reading nor understanding my simple question.

And that was it was, a question to YOU used as an example to illustrate the point.

You obviously DO understand the question and feel the need to politician-like 'dodge' the question and your answer of sorts comes across as an attempt at condescention If you can't enter reasonable debate without been 'silly'. You clearly know that i am questioning why 3 mangers all felt the need to resign from their posts. I repeat nowhere do i imly they were sacked. Indeed the latter half of your post suggests that perhaps you are intimating that they may have resigned before they were sacked. Thats a big call based on no evidence.

You may ask why we don't keep managers but then WITH NO EVIDENCE YOURSELF suggest that perhaps they resigned because they got told off, or couldn't handle the pressure etc. You don't know this was the case.

PS where are the 'insults'. You yourself have questioned Parky for instance.

Taylor was the joint worst manager i've seen at city and i stand by that. thats my opnion. It was the worst kind of football and one i don't enjoy paying to see.

I would have stuck with Stu and was prepared to give Jackson time. I'm still hoping that Parky can improve his own and the clubs performance. The common denominator for me is the direction of the chairman and their often short term attempt at solutions.

I repeat NOWHERE 9and please show me the evidence) do i say the managers were sacked and i cannot understand how you can come to this conclusion.
[quote][p][bold]lonniejockstrap[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dannbradfc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lonniejockstrap[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dannbradfc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lonniejockstrap[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dannbradfc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dannbradfc[/bold] wrote: My initial thoughts upon seeing the headline was SEASON TICKETS. Rhodes has obviously been drinking from the same glass as Lawn. One view of this is that he has to say these things to justify fans upset at last season renewing their tickets. Its taken Rhodes a long time to come out with this. Why didn't he support Lawns initial similar claims at the time and thus deflect some of the stick that Lawn got? For everyone who has been crying out for a long term strategy for the club, well this is why its not happened. Both chairman could see that after only 6 games that the squad were going to go down. Hardly an endoresement for a long term business plan is it? I actually was prepared to give them more time. Indeed there were signs that the side were starting to gel but we'll actually never know. We only lost games by one goal under jackson and with just a couple of more players, one a central defender this may have been resolved. We certainly saw more attacking play under Jackson and more football imo. Did we improve? the league position would suggest no compared to the season before. Both chairman are pretty good at blaming the previous managers for a variety of failures. These managers have no right to reply contractually wise. However both chairman forget that they chose to employ these managers in the first place. They set the criteria and budgets etc. they are also culpubable for any failings..... As i say this as to be the party line due to poor season ticket sales thus far. Fans need convincing. Why would that be? Are we all wrong? We will now be offered 'tit-bit's' of potential signings and rumour, of which i'll pay attention when they actually sign a contract. Most notably should be the fact that we were the 5th highests spenders and yet its to Parky's great credit that we managed to survive!! That must be down to the signings of Reed, Haworth, Atkinson, Smalley etc At least Rhodes acknowledges that the loans were mainly useless. However these were the current managers choices and not Jacksons....hmmm. VILLAGE BANTAM begins this headline with a good positive rallying call. However he spoils this by suggesting that some fans maybe looking foolish next year. By this logic does this mean he/she looks foolish now? We ALL want to be cheering success but can only do this when its actuality. Why would this be foolish? Despite all the resorces we nearly went down so why would we be cheering the mangers name? Those accused this season by others of been negative are in fact the positive one's in that they want us to progress and not accept mediocrity. To many pandoras box-types will accept everything untill its too late. I like ALL city fans will be cheering like crazy IF we achieve success next year and will have earned the right to do so. If however this isn't the case, how will you be feeling village bantam? It[/p][/quote]ps had lawn and rhodes been together when city were 22nd in the league after 10 games before winning promotion to the prem would we have ever got promotion?[/p][/quote]If you are giving credit to Jacko for only losing games by the odd goal in his 5 games in charge then surely you will give the same credit to PP? Only 7 of his 47 games in charge resulted in defeats by more than 1 goal. Two of those defeats were from teams in higher leagues one from league 1 and one from the championship. Of the remaining 5 defeats of more than 2 goals, one was against Crawley away, one against Rotherham away who were only 3 points off a play-off spot -and were handed two goals on a plate from Jonny Mc's howlers. And one against Cheltenham away who were in a play-off spot and needed to win to ensure they stayed there.[/p][/quote]One day Lonnie you might highlight a section of a post that yo agree on. That would be a positive. Instead it appears you focus in on things written by other posters that you feel demonstrates your argument or you one you can argue with. Thats how it looks anyway and i apologise if that isn't the case. Indeed you yourself elsewhere question PP's record/form,but now feel the need to defend it. The point you allude to was/is to point out the mis-representation by many on here that continually suggest that Jacksons team was getting 'hammered' this season. It wasn't. this was also part of a more attractive attempt to play football. Any manager can also attempt to shut-up shop and neglect the purpose of football i.e. to score more than the opposition in the hope of keeping the score down, sneaking a draw or even win. The main point that you bypass is that i felt that the team was starting to settle. Indeed we were seeing in patches the attempt to play football on the floor.....your early disregard for Jackson goes against your usual stance of wanting time......and echoes those of our chairman, which thus far has proved unsuccesful.[/p][/quote]Sorry to have to pick bits that I disagree with in your post dann but you know what a stickler I am for accuracy. 1 I often make a comment whereby I agree with what other posters have said. That's a fact dann, just go back to: 'lonniejockstrap says... 4:39pm Sat 12 May 12' on this very same article as an example. 2 I was are, and will remain in support of the need to keep managers for a period of years rather than months. So, regardless of how you wish to interpret my criticisms of Jacko's period of management I would have wished him to stay for a lot longer than he did in order to be in with a chance of developing his ideas and his team. I have also criticised Stuart's, Taylor's and as you correctly point out, PP's methods. How I can convince you that there is a world of difference between my making constructive -on the whole- criticism/comment and wanting a manager sacked is something I am obviously struggling to get across. Can you -once again purely out of the interest of accuracy- provide a quote from me ever saying that I wanted Jacko sacked or that he shouldn't be given time? I was not impressed with his time as 'interim manager' and didn't think his performance justified him getting the job when he effectively jumped the queue of the interviewee's. In fact, the opposite WAS the case. I felt extremely annoyed and let-down that he made so many changes to the 'foundations' of the Club and Team only to resign and leave what he had as his vision to somebody else to have to work with after such a short but not insignificant period in charge as regards budgets, organisation, personnel changes etc were concerned.[/p][/quote]ta for the reply. i haven't stated that you called for anyone to be sacked. indeed you may remember my praise for your solid defence of taylor. Your last part of the post is taking the official line however, and whilst your response maybe that that is what we have to be base everything on, often jobs become untenable. How many clubs have had three out of their last 4 managers resign? perhaps there are some things that don't go to press? I am obviously been 'flippant' here because to solely unquestinably follow the official party line is folly. Few other clubs have had that many resignations in such a short space of time. Indeed i wouldn't be surprised if no chairman in history has had all his managers resign/leave the club without been sacked like Lawn as. Indeed you should also perhaps question the state Taylor left the club in. Indeed there is a case that Taylors legacy directly not only Jackson (which it undoutedly did) but also continued through to Parky. Why not question the boards ability to keep managers after they have chosen them? they decide that they are the ideal candidate afterall. What goes on that they feel they must resign?[/p][/quote]Dann, you seem to be claiming that the managers were sacked? But the managers themselves have been quoted as saying THEY chose to leave -at least Taylor and McCall have- so it appears you will refuse to accept this regardless of the evidence. Of course there is a case that Taylor's legacy could have affected the follow on managers, that is the whole point of me saying we should STOP the changing of managers on a regular basis. Why am I having such difficulty in getting that message across to you? Am I really that poor at communicating? But, lets be fair here dann, you haven't been putting up a case for keeping and strongly backing the likes of Taylor or PP have you? So I think you should be a little less critical of Rhodes and Lawn even if they had forced out the managers -which you still haven't managed to provide evidence for- because that is in effect what you agree with! I HAVE -many times- 'questioned' the inability to keep managers. I appear to be incapable of communicating with you and that is becoming more and more obvious. I say this because after all the posts I have written and that you have read of me complaining about going through managers at the rate we do and it being -IMO- the most significant reason for our failure to progress up the league you fail to interpret that as a 'question' or a criticism of what strategy the board is following! You ask 'What goes on that they feel they must resign?'. I have to say that question, from you, just makes me feel you are either loosing your memory or you are just becoming a wind-up-merchant. If you don't know the answer to the question you pose then read some of your own posts about what you thought of Taylor and think of PP as managers, the 'entertainment' on show, the danger of relegation, the falling attendances, booing from the crowd, the failure to improve on the manager who went before them, insults directed at them -and the Chairmen for appointing them in the first place- and many other 'negatives that you have pointed out over recent months. Do you really not expect the managers to get a roasting every now and again from the board? Not even when we are doing so poorly and the manager was telling them only a short while ago how good they were and how their plans were going to work so well? You think it's quite all right for fans to abuse, criticise publicly and call for managers to be sacked but appear to be suggesting that people who have invested millions into the Club should be castigated because they have a go at the manager for not delivering and that manager MIGHT then take the huff and resign? It's a big boys world dann, and if Jacko, Taylor or even Stuart want to turn around in the future and claim they left because the board upset them then I say tough! That's sometimes what you have to put up with when you are not delivering the goods. And if that caused them to resign instead of sticking at it until they got the sack then that was THEIR choice. BUT!!!, also try to understand that they are also under tremendous pressure -it is reported that Stuart was physically sick after an away defeat at Morecambe- and that along with no longer being wanted by the supporters and no longer enjoying the job because they are not wanted can also be reasons for managers resigning. And there's me thinking that these things were so obvious![/p][/quote]You've got it completely wrong. I'm arguing WHY so many managers felt the need to resign. NOWHERE DO I IMPLY THEY WERE SACKED. Have you actually read my response? I know they all resigned and asked you why this was or could be. YOU are clearly not reading nor understanding my simple question. And that was it was, a question to YOU used as an example to illustrate the point. You obviously DO understand the question and feel the need to politician-like 'dodge' the question and your answer of sorts comes across as an attempt at condescention If you can't enter reasonable debate without been 'silly'. You clearly know that i am questioning why 3 mangers all felt the need to resign from their posts. I repeat nowhere do i imly they were sacked. Indeed the latter half of your post suggests that perhaps you are intimating that they may have resigned before they were sacked. Thats a big call based on no evidence. You may ask why we don't keep managers but then WITH NO EVIDENCE YOURSELF suggest that perhaps they resigned because they got told off, or couldn't handle the pressure etc. You don't know this was the case. PS where are the 'insults'. You yourself have questioned Parky for instance. Taylor was the joint worst manager i've seen at city and i stand by that. thats my opnion. It was the worst kind of football and one i don't enjoy paying to see. I would have stuck with Stu and was prepared to give Jackson time. I'm still hoping that Parky can improve his own and the clubs performance. The common denominator for me is the direction of the chairman and their often short term attempt at solutions. I repeat NOWHERE 9and please show me the evidence) do i say the managers were sacked and i cannot understand how you can come to this conclusion. dannbradfc
  • Score: 0

12:07pm Mon 14 May 12

dannbradfc says...

PS LONNIE

I also don't state nor intimate that the chairman "forced" the managers out. Considering your reliance on facts and stats i'm sure you agree thats its wrong to presume thats what i mean and/or put words in my mouth.

I asked the question Why? they felt the need to resign. A simple question to understand but difficult it would appear to answer. Yes it COULD be a variety of things but on each occasion the resignation was accepted.

Perhaps the managers found their job untenable, expectations to high?, interference from above?, or they just didn't get on with other employee's e.g. their bosses. They could even have not enjoyed the criticism as you suggest. There's a variety of potential reasons. I'm open minded to suggestions but do not consider the T and A, which afterall has an invested interest in keeping the chairmen happy (just ask David Markham) as the 'be all and end all' of the debate.
PS LONNIE I also don't state nor intimate that the chairman "forced" the managers out. Considering your reliance on facts and stats i'm sure you agree thats its wrong to presume thats what i mean and/or put words in my mouth. I asked the question Why? they felt the need to resign. A simple question to understand but difficult it would appear to answer. Yes it COULD be a variety of things but on each occasion the resignation was accepted. Perhaps the managers found their job untenable, expectations to high?, interference from above?, or they just didn't get on with other employee's e.g. their bosses. They could even have not enjoyed the criticism as you suggest. There's a variety of potential reasons. I'm open minded to suggestions but do not consider the T and A, which afterall has an invested interest in keeping the chairmen happy (just ask David Markham) as the 'be all and end all' of the debate. dannbradfc
  • Score: 0

2:00pm Mon 14 May 12

arhmen aleg says...

One Brian Mitchell I was talking to Brian on thursday.he works for Sport Scotland in aberdeen organising events staffing etc after getting a degree after finishing playing.
Shame there is"nt a team as that Brian was part of now eh.
Why does the chairman blame Jacko who had about 3 minutes to work with the squad.PP is to keep 9 of Jacko inherited or signed players (do they not only get one year contracts these days)and yet the season was all Jacko"s fault.
And why does the idea of a development squad get abandoned when the club has benefited from the like of Delph Cleverley et al.
Hannah off to HX.
all adds up to were very very skint again and looks like it won"t be long before the begging bowl is out.
You watch a Bulls type we need a million or were finshed could be just around the corner.
Then the fans should take control and say thank you very much directors and bye bye.
They have had their glory.
One Brian Mitchell I was talking to Brian on thursday.he works for Sport Scotland in aberdeen organising events staffing etc after getting a degree after finishing playing. Shame there is"nt a team as that Brian was part of now eh. Why does the chairman blame Jacko who had about 3 minutes to work with the squad.PP is to keep 9 of Jacko inherited or signed players (do they not only get one year contracts these days)and yet the season was all Jacko"s fault. And why does the idea of a development squad get abandoned when the club has benefited from the like of Delph Cleverley et al. Hannah off to HX. all adds up to were very very skint again and looks like it won"t be long before the begging bowl is out. You watch a Bulls type we need a million or were finshed could be just around the corner. Then the fans should take control and say thank you very much directors and bye bye. They have had their glory. arhmen aleg
  • Score: 0

4:13pm Mon 14 May 12

lonniejockstrap says...

dannbradfc wrote:
lonniejockstrap wrote:
dannbradfc wrote:
lonniejockstrap wrote:
dannbradfc wrote:
lonniejockstrap wrote:
dannbradfc wrote:
dannbradfc wrote: My initial thoughts upon seeing the headline was SEASON TICKETS. Rhodes has obviously been drinking from the same glass as Lawn. One view of this is that he has to say these things to justify fans upset at last season renewing their tickets. Its taken Rhodes a long time to come out with this. Why didn't he support Lawns initial similar claims at the time and thus deflect some of the stick that Lawn got? For everyone who has been crying out for a long term strategy for the club, well this is why its not happened. Both chairman could see that after only 6 games that the squad were going to go down. Hardly an endoresement for a long term business plan is it? I actually was prepared to give them more time. Indeed there were signs that the side were starting to gel but we'll actually never know. We only lost games by one goal under jackson and with just a couple of more players, one a central defender this may have been resolved. We certainly saw more attacking play under Jackson and more football imo. Did we improve? the league position would suggest no compared to the season before. Both chairman are pretty good at blaming the previous managers for a variety of failures. These managers have no right to reply contractually wise. However both chairman forget that they chose to employ these managers in the first place. They set the criteria and budgets etc. they are also culpubable for any failings..... As i say this as to be the party line due to poor season ticket sales thus far. Fans need convincing. Why would that be? Are we all wrong? We will now be offered 'tit-bit's' of potential signings and rumour, of which i'll pay attention when they actually sign a contract. Most notably should be the fact that we were the 5th highests spenders and yet its to Parky's great credit that we managed to survive!! That must be down to the signings of Reed, Haworth, Atkinson, Smalley etc At least Rhodes acknowledges that the loans were mainly useless. However these were the current managers choices and not Jacksons....hmmm. VILLAGE BANTAM begins this headline with a good positive rallying call. However he spoils this by suggesting that some fans maybe looking foolish next year. By this logic does this mean he/she looks foolish now? We ALL want to be cheering success but can only do this when its actuality. Why would this be foolish? Despite all the resorces we nearly went down so why would we be cheering the mangers name? Those accused this season by others of been negative are in fact the positive one's in that they want us to progress and not accept mediocrity. To many pandoras box-types will accept everything untill its too late. I like ALL city fans will be cheering like crazy IF we achieve success next year and will have earned the right to do so. If however this isn't the case, how will you be feeling village bantam? It
ps had lawn and rhodes been together when city were 22nd in the league after 10 games before winning promotion to the prem would we have ever got promotion?
If you are giving credit to Jacko for only losing games by the odd goal in his 5 games in charge then surely you will give the same credit to PP? Only 7 of his 47 games in charge resulted in defeats by more than 1 goal. Two of those defeats were from teams in higher leagues one from league 1 and one from the championship. Of the remaining 5 defeats of more than 2 goals, one was against Crawley away, one against Rotherham away who were only 3 points off a play-off spot -and were handed two goals on a plate from Jonny Mc's howlers. And one against Cheltenham away who were in a play-off spot and needed to win to ensure they stayed there.
One day Lonnie you might highlight a section of a post that yo agree on. That would be a positive. Instead it appears you focus in on things written by other posters that you feel demonstrates your argument or you one you can argue with. Thats how it looks anyway and i apologise if that isn't the case. Indeed you yourself elsewhere question PP's record/form,but now feel the need to defend it. The point you allude to was/is to point out the mis-representation by many on here that continually suggest that Jacksons team was getting 'hammered' this season. It wasn't. this was also part of a more attractive attempt to play football. Any manager can also attempt to shut-up shop and neglect the purpose of football i.e. to score more than the opposition in the hope of keeping the score down, sneaking a draw or even win. The main point that you bypass is that i felt that the team was starting to settle. Indeed we were seeing in patches the attempt to play football on the floor.....your early disregard for Jackson goes against your usual stance of wanting time......and echoes those of our chairman, which thus far has proved unsuccesful.
Sorry to have to pick bits that I disagree with in your post dann but you know what a stickler I am for accuracy. 1 I often make a comment whereby I agree with what other posters have said. That's a fact dann, just go back to: 'lonniejockstrap says... 4:39pm Sat 12 May 12' on this very same article as an example. 2 I was are, and will remain in support of the need to keep managers for a period of years rather than months. So, regardless of how you wish to interpret my criticisms of Jacko's period of management I would have wished him to stay for a lot longer than he did in order to be in with a chance of developing his ideas and his team. I have also criticised Stuart's, Taylor's and as you correctly point out, PP's methods. How I can convince you that there is a world of difference between my making constructive -on the whole- criticism/comment and wanting a manager sacked is something I am obviously struggling to get across. Can you -once again purely out of the interest of accuracy- provide a quote from me ever saying that I wanted Jacko sacked or that he shouldn't be given time? I was not impressed with his time as 'interim manager' and didn't think his performance justified him getting the job when he effectively jumped the queue of the interviewee's. In fact, the opposite WAS the case. I felt extremely annoyed and let-down that he made so many changes to the 'foundations' of the Club and Team only to resign and leave what he had as his vision to somebody else to have to work with after such a short but not insignificant period in charge as regards budgets, organisation, personnel changes etc were concerned.
ta for the reply. i haven't stated that you called for anyone to be sacked. indeed you may remember my praise for your solid defence of taylor. Your last part of the post is taking the official line however, and whilst your response maybe that that is what we have to be base everything on, often jobs become untenable. How many clubs have had three out of their last 4 managers resign? perhaps there are some things that don't go to press? I am obviously been 'flippant' here because to solely unquestinably follow the official party line is folly. Few other clubs have had that many resignations in such a short space of time. Indeed i wouldn't be surprised if no chairman in history has had all his managers resign/leave the club without been sacked like Lawn as. Indeed you should also perhaps question the state Taylor left the club in. Indeed there is a case that Taylors legacy directly not only Jackson (which it undoutedly did) but also continued through to Parky. Why not question the boards ability to keep managers after they have chosen them? they decide that they are the ideal candidate afterall. What goes on that they feel they must resign?
Dann, you seem to be claiming that the managers were sacked? But the managers themselves have been quoted as saying THEY chose to leave -at least Taylor and McCall have- so it appears you will refuse to accept this regardless of the evidence. Of course there is a case that Taylor's legacy could have affected the follow on managers, that is the whole point of me saying we should STOP the changing of managers on a regular basis. Why am I having such difficulty in getting that message across to you? Am I really that poor at communicating? But, lets be fair here dann, you haven't been putting up a case for keeping and strongly backing the likes of Taylor or PP have you? So I think you should be a little less critical of Rhodes and Lawn even if they had forced out the managers -which you still haven't managed to provide evidence for- because that is in effect what you agree with! I HAVE -many times- 'questioned' the inability to keep managers. I appear to be incapable of communicating with you and that is becoming more and more obvious. I say this because after all the posts I have written and that you have read of me complaining about going through managers at the rate we do and it being -IMO- the most significant reason for our failure to progress up the league you fail to interpret that as a 'question' or a criticism of what strategy the board is following! You ask 'What goes on that they feel they must resign?'. I have to say that question, from you, just makes me feel you are either loosing your memory or you are just becoming a wind-up-merchant. If you don't know the answer to the question you pose then read some of your own posts about what you thought of Taylor and think of PP as managers, the 'entertainment' on show, the danger of relegation, the falling attendances, booing from the crowd, the failure to improve on the manager who went before them, insults directed at them -and the Chairmen for appointing them in the first place- and many other 'negatives that you have pointed out over recent months. Do you really not expect the managers to get a roasting every now and again from the board? Not even when we are doing so poorly and the manager was telling them only a short while ago how good they were and how their plans were going to work so well? You think it's quite all right for fans to abuse, criticise publicly and call for managers to be sacked but appear to be suggesting that people who have invested millions into the Club should be castigated because they have a go at the manager for not delivering and that manager MIGHT then take the huff and resign? It's a big boys world dann, and if Jacko, Taylor or even Stuart want to turn around in the future and claim they left because the board upset them then I say tough! That's sometimes what you have to put up with when you are not delivering the goods. And if that caused them to resign instead of sticking at it until they got the sack then that was THEIR choice. BUT!!!, also try to understand that they are also under tremendous pressure -it is reported that Stuart was physically sick after an away defeat at Morecambe- and that along with no longer being wanted by the supporters and no longer enjoying the job because they are not wanted can also be reasons for managers resigning. And there's me thinking that these things were so obvious!
You've got it completely wrong. I'm arguing WHY so many managers felt the need to resign. NOWHERE DO I IMPLY THEY WERE SACKED. Have you actually read my response? I know they all resigned and asked you why this was or could be. YOU are clearly not reading nor understanding my simple question.

And that was it was, a question to YOU used as an example to illustrate the point.

You obviously DO understand the question and feel the need to politician-like 'dodge' the question and your answer of sorts comes across as an attempt at condescention If you can't enter reasonable debate without been 'silly'. You clearly know that i am questioning why 3 mangers all felt the need to resign from their posts. I repeat nowhere do i imly they were sacked. Indeed the latter half of your post suggests that perhaps you are intimating that they may have resigned before they were sacked. Thats a big call based on no evidence.

You may ask why we don't keep managers but then WITH NO EVIDENCE YOURSELF suggest that perhaps they resigned because they got told off, or couldn't handle the pressure etc. You don't know this was the case.

PS where are the 'insults'. You yourself have questioned Parky for instance.

Taylor was the joint worst manager i've seen at city and i stand by that. thats my opnion. It was the worst kind of football and one i don't enjoy paying to see.

I would have stuck with Stu and was prepared to give Jackson time. I'm still hoping that Parky can improve his own and the clubs performance. The common denominator for me is the direction of the chairman and their often short term attempt at solutions.

I repeat NOWHERE 9and please show me the evidence) do i say the managers were sacked and i cannot understand how you can come to this conclusion.
As I have said before, on numerous occasions, that Stuart gave his reasons for leaving and Taylor gave his reasons for leaving. I am prepared to accept those reasons. How many more times do I have to refer to what they gave as their reasons for leaving before it sinks in with you dann? If you accept those reasons -as I have- and accept that is what I have been quoting regularly then you wouldn't need me to guess at why they have left would you? You didn't accept my opinion that the fans played a significant part in managers leaving and you don't accept what I put in the last paragraph of what I wrote above regarding pressure etc. etc. If you did you wouldn't be claiming I have 'dodged' the question.

Why don't you cut to the chase dann and simply tell us all what YOU believe has lead to the managers resigning and we can then ask you why you think that?
[quote][p][bold]dannbradfc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lonniejockstrap[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dannbradfc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lonniejockstrap[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dannbradfc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lonniejockstrap[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dannbradfc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dannbradfc[/bold] wrote: My initial thoughts upon seeing the headline was SEASON TICKETS. Rhodes has obviously been drinking from the same glass as Lawn. One view of this is that he has to say these things to justify fans upset at last season renewing their tickets. Its taken Rhodes a long time to come out with this. Why didn't he support Lawns initial similar claims at the time and thus deflect some of the stick that Lawn got? For everyone who has been crying out for a long term strategy for the club, well this is why its not happened. Both chairman could see that after only 6 games that the squad were going to go down. Hardly an endoresement for a long term business plan is it? I actually was prepared to give them more time. Indeed there were signs that the side were starting to gel but we'll actually never know. We only lost games by one goal under jackson and with just a couple of more players, one a central defender this may have been resolved. We certainly saw more attacking play under Jackson and more football imo. Did we improve? the league position would suggest no compared to the season before. Both chairman are pretty good at blaming the previous managers for a variety of failures. These managers have no right to reply contractually wise. However both chairman forget that they chose to employ these managers in the first place. They set the criteria and budgets etc. they are also culpubable for any failings..... As i say this as to be the party line due to poor season ticket sales thus far. Fans need convincing. Why would that be? Are we all wrong? We will now be offered 'tit-bit's' of potential signings and rumour, of which i'll pay attention when they actually sign a contract. Most notably should be the fact that we were the 5th highests spenders and yet its to Parky's great credit that we managed to survive!! That must be down to the signings of Reed, Haworth, Atkinson, Smalley etc At least Rhodes acknowledges that the loans were mainly useless. However these were the current managers choices and not Jacksons....hmmm. VILLAGE BANTAM begins this headline with a good positive rallying call. However he spoils this by suggesting that some fans maybe looking foolish next year. By this logic does this mean he/she looks foolish now? We ALL want to be cheering success but can only do this when its actuality. Why would this be foolish? Despite all the resorces we nearly went down so why would we be cheering the mangers name? Those accused this season by others of been negative are in fact the positive one's in that they want us to progress and not accept mediocrity. To many pandoras box-types will accept everything untill its too late. I like ALL city fans will be cheering like crazy IF we achieve success next year and will have earned the right to do so. If however this isn't the case, how will you be feeling village bantam? It[/p][/quote]ps had lawn and rhodes been together when city were 22nd in the league after 10 games before winning promotion to the prem would we have ever got promotion?[/p][/quote]If you are giving credit to Jacko for only losing games by the odd goal in his 5 games in charge then surely you will give the same credit to PP? Only 7 of his 47 games in charge resulted in defeats by more than 1 goal. Two of those defeats were from teams in higher leagues one from league 1 and one from the championship. Of the remaining 5 defeats of more than 2 goals, one was against Crawley away, one against Rotherham away who were only 3 points off a play-off spot -and were handed two goals on a plate from Jonny Mc's howlers. And one against Cheltenham away who were in a play-off spot and needed to win to ensure they stayed there.[/p][/quote]One day Lonnie you might highlight a section of a post that yo agree on. That would be a positive. Instead it appears you focus in on things written by other posters that you feel demonstrates your argument or you one you can argue with. Thats how it looks anyway and i apologise if that isn't the case. Indeed you yourself elsewhere question PP's record/form,but now feel the need to defend it. The point you allude to was/is to point out the mis-representation by many on here that continually suggest that Jacksons team was getting 'hammered' this season. It wasn't. this was also part of a more attractive attempt to play football. Any manager can also attempt to shut-up shop and neglect the purpose of football i.e. to score more than the opposition in the hope of keeping the score down, sneaking a draw or even win. The main point that you bypass is that i felt that the team was starting to settle. Indeed we were seeing in patches the attempt to play football on the floor.....your early disregard for Jackson goes against your usual stance of wanting time......and echoes those of our chairman, which thus far has proved unsuccesful.[/p][/quote]Sorry to have to pick bits that I disagree with in your post dann but you know what a stickler I am for accuracy. 1 I often make a comment whereby I agree with what other posters have said. That's a fact dann, just go back to: 'lonniejockstrap says... 4:39pm Sat 12 May 12' on this very same article as an example. 2 I was are, and will remain in support of the need to keep managers for a period of years rather than months. So, regardless of how you wish to interpret my criticisms of Jacko's period of management I would have wished him to stay for a lot longer than he did in order to be in with a chance of developing his ideas and his team. I have also criticised Stuart's, Taylor's and as you correctly point out, PP's methods. How I can convince you that there is a world of difference between my making constructive -on the whole- criticism/comment and wanting a manager sacked is something I am obviously struggling to get across. Can you -once again purely out of the interest of accuracy- provide a quote from me ever saying that I wanted Jacko sacked or that he shouldn't be given time? I was not impressed with his time as 'interim manager' and didn't think his performance justified him getting the job when he effectively jumped the queue of the interviewee's. In fact, the opposite WAS the case. I felt extremely annoyed and let-down that he made so many changes to the 'foundations' of the Club and Team only to resign and leave what he had as his vision to somebody else to have to work with after such a short but not insignificant period in charge as regards budgets, organisation, personnel changes etc were concerned.[/p][/quote]ta for the reply. i haven't stated that you called for anyone to be sacked. indeed you may remember my praise for your solid defence of taylor. Your last part of the post is taking the official line however, and whilst your response maybe that that is what we have to be base everything on, often jobs become untenable. How many clubs have had three out of their last 4 managers resign? perhaps there are some things that don't go to press? I am obviously been 'flippant' here because to solely unquestinably follow the official party line is folly. Few other clubs have had that many resignations in such a short space of time. Indeed i wouldn't be surprised if no chairman in history has had all his managers resign/leave the club without been sacked like Lawn as. Indeed you should also perhaps question the state Taylor left the club in. Indeed there is a case that Taylors legacy directly not only Jackson (which it undoutedly did) but also continued through to Parky. Why not question the boards ability to keep managers after they have chosen them? they decide that they are the ideal candidate afterall. What goes on that they feel they must resign?[/p][/quote]Dann, you seem to be claiming that the managers were sacked? But the managers themselves have been quoted as saying THEY chose to leave -at least Taylor and McCall have- so it appears you will refuse to accept this regardless of the evidence. Of course there is a case that Taylor's legacy could have affected the follow on managers, that is the whole point of me saying we should STOP the changing of managers on a regular basis. Why am I having such difficulty in getting that message across to you? Am I really that poor at communicating? But, lets be fair here dann, you haven't been putting up a case for keeping and strongly backing the likes of Taylor or PP have you? So I think you should be a little less critical of Rhodes and Lawn even if they had forced out the managers -which you still haven't managed to provide evidence for- because that is in effect what you agree with! I HAVE -many times- 'questioned' the inability to keep managers. I appear to be incapable of communicating with you and that is becoming more and more obvious. I say this because after all the posts I have written and that you have read of me complaining about going through managers at the rate we do and it being -IMO- the most significant reason for our failure to progress up the league you fail to interpret that as a 'question' or a criticism of what strategy the board is following! You ask 'What goes on that they feel they must resign?'. I have to say that question, from you, just makes me feel you are either loosing your memory or you are just becoming a wind-up-merchant. If you don't know the answer to the question you pose then read some of your own posts about what you thought of Taylor and think of PP as managers, the 'entertainment' on show, the danger of relegation, the falling attendances, booing from the crowd, the failure to improve on the manager who went before them, insults directed at them -and the Chairmen for appointing them in the first place- and many other 'negatives that you have pointed out over recent months. Do you really not expect the managers to get a roasting every now and again from the board? Not even when we are doing so poorly and the manager was telling them only a short while ago how good they were and how their plans were going to work so well? You think it's quite all right for fans to abuse, criticise publicly and call for managers to be sacked but appear to be suggesting that people who have invested millions into the Club should be castigated because they have a go at the manager for not delivering and that manager MIGHT then take the huff and resign? It's a big boys world dann, and if Jacko, Taylor or even Stuart want to turn around in the future and claim they left because the board upset them then I say tough! That's sometimes what you have to put up with when you are not delivering the goods. And if that caused them to resign instead of sticking at it until they got the sack then that was THEIR choice. BUT!!!, also try to understand that they are also under tremendous pressure -it is reported that Stuart was physically sick after an away defeat at Morecambe- and that along with no longer being wanted by the supporters and no longer enjoying the job because they are not wanted can also be reasons for managers resigning. And there's me thinking that these things were so obvious![/p][/quote]You've got it completely wrong. I'm arguing WHY so many managers felt the need to resign. NOWHERE DO I IMPLY THEY WERE SACKED. Have you actually read my response? I know they all resigned and asked you why this was or could be. YOU are clearly not reading nor understanding my simple question. And that was it was, a question to YOU used as an example to illustrate the point. You obviously DO understand the question and feel the need to politician-like 'dodge' the question and your answer of sorts comes across as an attempt at condescention If you can't enter reasonable debate without been 'silly'. You clearly know that i am questioning why 3 mangers all felt the need to resign from their posts. I repeat nowhere do i imly they were sacked. Indeed the latter half of your post suggests that perhaps you are intimating that they may have resigned before they were sacked. Thats a big call based on no evidence. You may ask why we don't keep managers but then WITH NO EVIDENCE YOURSELF suggest that perhaps they resigned because they got told off, or couldn't handle the pressure etc. You don't know this was the case. PS where are the 'insults'. You yourself have questioned Parky for instance. Taylor was the joint worst manager i've seen at city and i stand by that. thats my opnion. It was the worst kind of football and one i don't enjoy paying to see. I would have stuck with Stu and was prepared to give Jackson time. I'm still hoping that Parky can improve his own and the clubs performance. The common denominator for me is the direction of the chairman and their often short term attempt at solutions. I repeat NOWHERE 9and please show me the evidence) do i say the managers were sacked and i cannot understand how you can come to this conclusion.[/p][/quote]As I have said before, on numerous occasions, that Stuart gave his reasons for leaving and Taylor gave his reasons for leaving. I am prepared to accept those reasons. How many more times do I have to refer to what they gave as their reasons for leaving before it sinks in with you dann? If you accept those reasons -as I have- and accept that is what I have been quoting regularly then you wouldn't need me to guess at why they have left would you? You didn't accept my opinion that the fans played a significant part in managers leaving and you don't accept what I put in the last paragraph of what I wrote above regarding pressure etc. etc. If you did you wouldn't be claiming I have 'dodged' the question. Why don't you cut to the chase dann and simply tell us all what YOU believe has lead to the managers resigning and we can then ask you why you think that? lonniejockstrap
  • Score: 0

6:29pm Mon 14 May 12

340stopper says...

I think the managers resigned mostly owing to interferrence.
I think the managers resigned mostly owing to interferrence. 340stopper
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

Get Adobe Flash player
About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree