Worst start to the league since...

[Myles Francis]

And that's not the only thing he's Eton. Sorry.

You'd be against Charlie Methven being involved with OUFC then?

[Werthers Original]

Can't believe no one has commented on the game. I thought we played well, at last we have a midfield. All we need is a striker and we will be fine

[Shoobedoo]

First game of the season for me and I took far more positives than negatives from it.

I've not seen an Oxford side dominate a first half like that for years. We could easily have been at least two up by half time with a bit more luck (particularly with the penalty which looked nailed-on to me). Then it wouldn't have mattered that Pompey had a spell in the second half.

Collins totally ran the midfield, ably supported by Rose. Don't know what the fuss is about Newey, he was excellent defensively and solid if unexciting going forward (if he was more than that, he wouldn't be playing in league 2 would he?).

Passing, movement and shape all absolutely miles better than recent years. Just needs an experienced striker with a bit of league 2 nous to top it all off. I'm not worried yet - we're in a false position and it'll just take one to bobble in off someone's arse and then we'll fly.

[OUFC4eva]

Don't know if he has any League Two "nous" but talented striker Will Hoskins, 28
could be signing for the U's.Hoskins made his name at Rotherham before moves to Watford,
Bristol Rovers and Brighton & HA.Hoskins a loan spell at Sheffield United in 2012.

[Myles Francis]

First game of the season for me as well.

I'm not really clear what formation we were actually playing yesterday. It certainly wasn't 4-2-3-1 and actually looked much more like 4-4-2. The trouble it, the middle 4 was very very narrow, with all 4 often occupying a 30yd wide strip down the middle of the pitch. This meant the main attacking threat from the flank came from Riley and Newey. In turn, this resulted in us being caught short at the back when we lost possession in the final third.

Whilst we did play some good football, and had the lion's share of possession, to say that we "dominated" the first half is being rather generous IMHO. Collins and Rose were indeed very good, and I thought Hylton did his best to cause problems for the Pompey back three. Personally, I though it was fairly level over all, with Pompey using their power and pace to put us under pressure when they won possession.

But 360 minutes with no goals from open play tells the story. Passing and movement was good, but we didn't really create many clear cut goalscoring opportunities. A couple of goalmouth scrambles from corners in the first half, and a very good save from a Brown shot in the second was about the sum of it.

Certainly there were positives to be taken, but this squad is still desperately lacking in goals and there is no wait that this need can wait until January.

[GodalmingYellow]

Indeed, you can rely on the Lib Dems to stick to their manifesto pledges....oh wait.

To be fair, as Clegg has said many times, they didn't actually win the election did they, so even by joining the coalition, they could not be expected to be able to deliver all of their manifesto promises.....

I'm not going to get into how many they have/havent (becuase I dont know), or indeed how many the tories (or labour) have been able to deliver.....

....BUT could it be that, should the coalition remain after the next election, might this be the kind of thing that the tories will accept as a sop to their minority partners??

I suppose it's whether you think principles are important. From the day of the election until now the lib dens could have triggered another election, or forced the Tories to govern by useless minority. But they've given support to this vampire-like government who are cutting what little state support was left for those not fit, of working age, and fortunate enough to live in London.

Not really no.

Not only are general elections extremely expensive to run, but even by pulling out of the government, the LibDems could not have forced another election. It would have just left a minority government was able to achieve nothing. That too would have been even more expensive for the country and we would now almost certainly be in a much worse economic position.

It's no use complaining just because the party you vote for doesn't get elected. The fact is that Labour failed and failed really badly, as they always have done through economic mis-management. Ed Ballsup really is an embarrassment.

As Mooro said, LibDems didn't win the election, and were not even in the top 2, so you can't expect their full manifesto to be implemented as a minority party in coalition.

This country isn't used to coalitions, which is why the Labour Party propaganda against the LibDems on this issue has engaged a few people, but the propaganda is neither realistic nor reflective of the reality.

Blimey, I only mentioned the safe standing thing because I thought readers might be interested to know. Lol

[Ancient Colin]

A more positive view from outside

[Yorkie]

A more positive view from outside

This is in today's print edition of the Guardian.

[tomoufc]

Not really no.

Not only are general elections extremely expensive to run, but even by pulling out of the government, the LibDems could not have forced another election. It would have just left a minority government was able to achieve nothing. That too would have been even more expensive for the country and we would now almost certainly be in a much worse economic position.

It's no use complaining just because the party you vote for doesn't get elected. The fact is that Labour failed and failed really badly, as they always have done through economic mis-management. Ed Ballsup really is an embarrassment.

As Mooro said, LibDems didn't win the election, and were not even in the top 2, so you can't expect their full manifesto to be implemented as a minority party in coalition.

This country isn't used to coalitions, which is why the Labour Party propaganda against the LibDems on this issue has engaged a few people, but the propaganda is neither realistic nor reflective of the reality.

Blimey, I only mentioned the safe standing thing because I thought readers might be interested to know. Lol

Oh I'm certainly no fan of New Labour - Thatcher's 'greatest achievement' (her own words). We could have an argument about austerity - but this probably isn't the place (shocking admission from me there!). All I'll say is this - up North the infrastructure of civil society is at breaking point, with no life support. Weather it be leisure facilities, education, rail, roads, or the NHS. That's the cost of this debt-fueled, London-centric, asset price 'recovery' - sqaulor, disease, unemployment - and things weren't that great before 2009. So you can keep your neoliberal nonsense mate.

Anyway - safe standing. Good to see this is being trialled at Bristol City. It looks like the argument is starting to be won: http://www.theguardian.com/football/201 ... ding-areas. They too have rugby at their ground which allows for standing at the rugby matches at least, pending a change in law.

[tomoufc]

And that's not the only thing he's Eton. Sorry.

You'd be against Charlie Methven being involved with OUFC then?

Of course George Orwell went to Eton, as did other heroes of Socialism.

Seriously though - neither for nor against. But I think we're stuck in the past in many ways. The future of smaller clubs is in direct and democratic fan ownership, rather than hoping and praying for the next millionaire savior to come along. The sooner we realise that, the better, and we can start taking practical steps towards it. I acknowledge the difficulties of not having a stadium, but that didn't seem to deter AFCW or FCUM. The atmosphere at FCUM matches has to be seen to be believed. There's something about having real ownership and a real say in your club that makes for a cracking match day experience. I think we'll get there - it's almost inevitable, I think. Quite how we do so, I'm not so sure. Perhaps we'll have to go through another set of (probably well meaning, but ultimately incompetent) 'owners' before we get to seriously talking about it.

[GodalmingYellow]

Heroes of socialism. Now there's a contradiction in terms.

[GodalmingYellow]

Not really no.

Not only are general elections extremely expensive to run, but even by pulling out of the government, the LibDems could not have forced another election. It would have just left a minority government was able to achieve nothing. That too would have been even more expensive for the country and we would now almost certainly be in a much worse economic position.

It's no use complaining just because the party you vote for doesn't get elected. The fact is that Labour failed and failed really badly, as they always have done through economic mis-management. Ed Ballsup really is an embarrassment.

As Mooro said, LibDems didn't win the election, and were not even in the top 2, so you can't expect their full manifesto to be implemented as a minority party in coalition.

This country isn't used to coalitions, which is why the Labour Party propaganda against the LibDems on this issue has engaged a few people, but the propaganda is neither realistic nor reflective of the reality.

Blimey, I only mentioned the safe standing thing because I thought readers might be interested to know. Lol

Oh I'm certainly no fan of New Labour - Thatcher's 'greatest achievement' (her own words). We could have an argument about austerity - but this probably isn't the place (shocking admission from me there!). All I'll say is this - up North the infrastructure of civil society is at breaking point, with no life support. Weather it be leisure facilities, education, rail, roads, or the NHS. That's the cost of this debt-fueled, London-centric, asset price 'recovery' - sqaulor, disease, unemployment - and things weren't that great before 2009. So you can keep your neoliberal nonsense mate.

Anyway - safe standing. Good to see this is being trialled at Bristol City. It looks like the argument is starting to be won: http://www.theguardian.com/football/201 ... ding-areas. They too have rugby at their ground which allows for standing at the rugby matches at least, pending a change in law.

Neo-liberal eh? Lol

I don't conform to what you might think of as normal politics. Anyone who accepts policies because they are heralded by a particular party or political ideology is a total fool. Policies should be based on what is the right thing to do and results in the best overall outcomes, not because something is left wing or right wing or "neo-Liberal" or whatever. Those old politics need to be kicked into history where they didn't work in the first place.

But as we have both said and both ignored, this isn't the place. You are welcome to message me by whatever means if you want to continue though.

[Snake]

Heroes of socialism. Now there's a contradiction in terms.

Desmond Morris lived in that place down the A420 for 18 years, went to boarding school and studied at Oxford. Him bad - but then he ended up as Vice Chairman of Oxford United and we could do with a few more of his ilk around the boardroom table as he knows how Sociobiology works.

Anyway, I’ll ask again. Has anyone any idea how much the MP for Witney has ever contributed to promoting Oxford United, and if so, exactly what? And a question for the person who manages the club database – how many Season Ticket holders reside in his constituency, and how many people have bought a ticket in his ‘patch’ during the time he’s been PM? (it can’t be all that difficult to find out with current technology).

And another question, is the Duke of Marlborough still our ‘President’ and has he ever been spotted at a game?

[Kairdiff Exile]

Just on the safe standing issue, I'm delighted that the Lib Dems have made it a manifesto commitment. Whatever some of the posters on here may think about the party, they deserve credit for being the first mainstream party to actually take a stance on it. One can only hope that by doing so, it puts pressure on the other two parties to respond as well. Imagine if it kick-started a process which saw all three go into the 2015 election promising to legislate on the matter. Wouldn't that be something?

Some of the petulant name-calling on here ("Socialist!", "Neo-Liberal!") is beneath those responsible and makes the House of Commons look positively sophisticated in comparison.

[SmileyMan]

Heroes of socialism. Now there's a contradiction in terms.

I think Orwell made his feelings pretty clear in Animal Farm