Nick
Administrator
If he wasn't a director and was just a caretaker manager he wouldn't have got half as much stick...
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
He sounded a cross between you, RFC and Fisher
He was too polite to be Grendull, too coherent to be Fisher and RFC was straight on here to deny it. It's RFC then
Astute
Well-Known Member
.....and something to do with a building company and our training ground looking like going for houses to be built on......
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Six loses on the bounce and in a far worse position when he took on the roll than he started. I'm sure he would have.
Terry Gibson's perm
Well-Known Member
Not really. I don't know how much the players earn here but I do know how much my nephew earns at Fleetwood and he is on way less than that.
The club seem almost proud of this low budget
Nick
Administrator
Exactly, not much of the stick was football related.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Bollocks. Loss after loss. Playing players out of position. Didn't even have a plan A. Yet we wasn't saying that he didn't have a clue?
Players do leave to earn more money and at least one manager has turned us down. There is no evidence that players and managers won't come to us because of a peaceful 6 minutes protest.
I think the protest could actually show that there is a challenge here, which a good manager may want to take on. None of the fans protesting hates the club or wants the club to die. There is a positive way of looking at this. I watched it on TV, but could sense the passion by what I saw and heard.
Nick
Administrator
I didn't say you
Most of his stick was being a sisu puppet, Mowbray wasn't a director and did the same and he got a lot less.
Nick
Administrator
I don't think it would put managers off, i can see why it would buyers.
Terry Gibson's perm
Well-Known Member
If I was a buyer and really wanted the club I would be funding it as the price from the mad old witch will have to come down from the fantasy figures to the pound it's worth.
Mowbray was a proven manager, got us good loanees, had us top of the table and scoring loads of goals.....before it all went wrong. People gave him credit for the good run and it took time for the spell to wear off. Venus had a short "bounce". If the bounce had continued we would have forgot about housing and be booking days off for the playoffs.
Really, the buyers would first have accepted that 'the club is in a sorry state' according to one of 2 directors, and that the structure of the club is wrong and it will die at the Ricoh from the other. Having accepted that, they suddenly are put off by a one off peaceful protest by fans who want new owners/ buyers and would greet them with open arms if they actually bought the club to achieve sporting success.....
No. I don't believe buyers would be put off. More likely that they would use the situation to try and knock a bit off Joy's price - hence Tim being pissed off.
Terry Gibson's perm
Well-Known Member
She would have to pay me more than that to take it on and she could throw in a Fisher for free as I would need somebody to clean the bogs.
Alan Dugdales Moustache
Well-Known Member
What evidence is there that any manager would not take a job because the supporters were restless ? None.
Astute
Well-Known Member
You only need evidence if you shout SISU OUT.
D
Deleted member 4439
Guest
Politely, posters here are conflating the 'edginess' in the crowd with the actual on-field protest, which couldn't be described in any way other than peaceful throughout, including the way the protestors entered and left the field. The caller - identified as a follow-on caller as Pete Chambers - clearly had a more basic issue with the act of the protest, which is his right of course - but in doing so chose to pander to Fisher's line of attack.
To address the off-field behavior, if people really took fright of this then I can only wonder what sort of football games the have attended over the years. Sure, there may have been one of two Dads a bit nervy for their kids but anything more than that - really?
To address the off-field behavior, if people really took fright of this then I can only wonder what sort of football games the have attended over the years. Sure, there may have been one of two Dads a bit nervy for their kids but anything more than that - really?
ccfctommy
Well-Known Member
No. Totally different Pete Chambers.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
At least Mr Chambers created debate on this tired programme.
He made certain basic points
1. The club statement was appropriate and had to be done. Yes this is correct. The club has a duty to prevent invasion onto the pitch during games. Failure to do so again would have severe consequences for the club. Already a fine will be forthcoming. It is unlawful and the club have to act.
2. People were frightened by the protest. He is correct on this. There were some who felt the atmosphere was intimidating. A couple near me looked visibly shaken. I didn't - I thought it was funny - but some didn't.
3. People shouldn't chant "sisu out" as its detrimental. Well, I don't see it having a negative impact. Freedom of speech providing within the law is not a problem. Players should not be distracted. I don't think stopping games is a smart move but chanting and banners go on in several venues.
4. The invasion led to the team conceding a goal. No one has a crystal ball do they so no one can answer. Delays happen - a player could have had a bad injury - the timing was unfortunate but no one knows.
Managers and owners may be put off - his opinion. Not managers I suspect at all. Potential buyers may view as negative but it's all opinion. Nothing massively controversial.
It's his view. I agree with some bits and not others. Still he attends and deserves to give an opinion on these matters without ridicule or insults - does he not?
He made certain basic points
1. The club statement was appropriate and had to be done. Yes this is correct. The club has a duty to prevent invasion onto the pitch during games. Failure to do so again would have severe consequences for the club. Already a fine will be forthcoming. It is unlawful and the club have to act.
2. People were frightened by the protest. He is correct on this. There were some who felt the atmosphere was intimidating. A couple near me looked visibly shaken. I didn't - I thought it was funny - but some didn't.
3. People shouldn't chant "sisu out" as its detrimental. Well, I don't see it having a negative impact. Freedom of speech providing within the law is not a problem. Players should not be distracted. I don't think stopping games is a smart move but chanting and banners go on in several venues.
4. The invasion led to the team conceding a goal. No one has a crystal ball do they so no one can answer. Delays happen - a player could have had a bad injury - the timing was unfortunate but no one knows.
Managers and owners may be put off - his opinion. Not managers I suspect at all. Potential buyers may view as negative but it's all opinion. Nothing massively controversial.
It's his view. I agree with some bits and not others. Still he attends and deserves to give an opinion on these matters without ridicule or insults - does he not?
Astute
Well-Known Member
Yes everyone has the right to have an opinion. But not to have a go at others because their opinion is different unless they are acting like an idiot.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
As I say I don't agree with his view on the vocal protests. However a texter than came on and said people buying season tickets are the biggest problem and should look at themselves - that's acting like a real idiot isn't it?
D
Deleted member 4439
Guest
1. They have to be seen to act.
2. Sorry, but I still find this incredulous.
3. Detrimental to what? Team performances? Clearly factually wrong, since this has been chanted at every game home and away for what, four seasons or so, during which time we're been on winning runs as well as losing ones. If anything you could take Fisher's line and say the chanting is simply pointless because SISU don't care.
4. So, an empty point then.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
You are wrong on point one and cannot speak for anyone else other than yourself on point 2
Astute
Well-Known Member
Which is what I said.
I don't have a go at those who normally have a different POV for no reason other than just having a different POV and don't leave alone those that normally have the same POV as me. I question everyone where I see them contradicting themselves or are coming out with shite for instance.
Can you say the same?
hutch1972
Well-Known Member
Yes , the club have to make a statement, but TF tub thumping is unnecessary and Imo just inflames the situation.
If some people found the atmosphere too intimidating on thursday , heaven help them if we ever play in the big time again.
By not voicing your opinion in any way you are supporting the way the club is being run , it stands to reason , no dissent means everyone's happy.
We looked like conceding for quite a while before the stoppage , some of our players were on empty and so it should have done us a favour. I agree though we'll never really know.
His comment about any potential buyer thinking twice about buying was taken straight out of TF speech. It was rubbish when he spouted it and it's still Bollocks now.
It's nothing controversial as you say, but his opinion of just sitting back and accepting all is just plain wrong.
georgehudson
Well-Known Member
There really are some people who are totally up themselves,
Pete Chambers for example wasn't he the man who was bleating & had appeplexy about sky blue ribbons being put up in cheylesmore, methinks .... get a fucking life matey,
Tonight, i was busy so missed the 'phone in', was Chairman Fisher involved to inquire about his utter dislike of CCFC fans ? Only my opinion of course, PUSB
Pete Chambers for example wasn't he the man who was bleating & had appeplexy about sky blue ribbons being put up in cheylesmore, methinks .... get a fucking life matey,
Tonight, i was busy so missed the 'phone in', was Chairman Fisher involved to inquire about his utter dislike of CCFC fans ? Only my opinion of course, PUSB
ceetee
Well-Known Member
Well I'm 73 and the pitch invasion gave me no concerns whatsoever apart fron being frustrated by the timing of it.
Admittedly I sit in B23 so don't know what was going on further along or what the atmosphere was there.
My initial reaction was that it was mostly kids jumping on the bandwagon of a serious and understandable protest.
Admittedly I sit in B23 so don't know what was going on further along or what the atmosphere was there.
My initial reaction was that it was mostly kids jumping on the bandwagon of a serious and understandable protest.
D
Deleted member 4439
Guest
So now we're down to 2 of yours/Pete's points, the first of which is simply opinion - you and Pete are content to tow the Fisher line, and the second of which you concede is a moot point. Sorry, but again, if people think that the protest was intimidating then I can only assume that they must have been to very few football games outside of Sixfields.
I'm actually finding this a tad silly now.
Last edited by a moderator:
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Was the act of a pitch invasion a criminal act?
D
Deleted member 4439
Guest
So, now we're down to one point, though I'm failing to understand exactly what it is.
Irish Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Same name different chap
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
Yea let's go back to holding up a4 pieces of paper that no one can read, that will get national attention.
Ffs what were people scared of? The protests were peaceful throughout.
The only thing I could think people might have been worried about is that the Sheffield utd fans were going to kick off in or outside the stadium and start some trouble but that's not the fault of the city fans.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
No he made several points - his opinion
As I say the texter afterwards blaming season ticket holders for being the real problem was far more offensive - were they not?