Page 9 of 18
Re:
Posted: Wed Jan 14, 2009 12:51 pm
by GodalmingYellow
"Shoobedoo" wrote:Haldane came to the party? Not from where I was sitting.
Haldane drove me bloody spare. Good positioning - generally stuck to the wing - rarely end product - nil. Same with Yemi.
The two new loanees were OK if unspectacular Chapman looked better at fullback than he did in midfield and we immediately perked up when Burnell came on.
Hutchinson - if you'll pardon the pun - what's the point?
We'll never hold on to Constable if he carries on playing like this. The brightest light in a season of prevailing gloom.
Was disappointed with Sappleton but as with LSD he's young and you can't expect him to be utterly consistent yet. One bad game does not a Marvin Robinson make... (or a David Kemp, come to that).
I guess I was hoping that the events of the week might bring out a siege mentality "everyone's out to get us so we'll show them - hah!" attitude, unfortunately it didn't happen.
Still - can't get any worse can it? Er, wait...
I think the improvement when Burnell came on wasn't as a result of anything good done by Burnell, who was utterley useless as usual (how can any pro footballer justify having to run around the ball to get it on to his correct foot?), it was more a reduction in the shiteness of what had gone before.
Re:
Posted: Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:06 pm
by Ascension Ox
"GodalmingYellow" wrote:"Shoobedoo" wrote:Haldane came to the party? Not from where I was sitting.
Haldane drove me bloody spare. Good positioning - generally stuck to the wing - rarely end product - nil. Same with Yemi.
The two new loanees were OK if unspectacular Chapman looked better at fullback than he did in midfield and we immediately perked up when Burnell came on.
Hutchinson - if you'll pardon the pun - what's the point?
We'll never hold on to Constable if he carries on playing like this. The brightest light in a season of prevailing gloom.
Was disappointed with Sappleton but as with LSD he's young and you can't expect him to be utterly consistent yet. One bad game does not a Marvin Robinson make... (or a David Kemp, come to that).
I guess I was hoping that the events of the week might bring out a siege mentality "everyone's out to get us so we'll show them - hah!" attitude, unfortunately it didn't happen.
Still - can't get any worse can it? Er, wait...
I think the improvement when Burnell came on wasn't as a result of anything good done by Burnell, who was utterley useless as usual (how can any pro footballer justify having to run around the ball to get it on to his correct foot?), it was more a reduction in the shiteness of what had gone before.
Burnell was Ok, Chapman showed promise, Constable was excellent, Haldane has no guts. He's a show pony.
'Steve Hutchinson' has cost us a lot of points this season. One way or the other.
Re:
Posted: Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:11 pm
by GodalmingYellow
"Ascension Ox" wrote:'Steve Hutchinson' has cost us a lot of points this season. One way or the other.
This is very true, and not just in the games he has played.
Posted: Wed Jan 14, 2009 6:38 pm
by Snake
First table I've seen that has been updated with the points fiasco.
Don't look if you don't want to..
http://www.tonykempster.co.uk/conf.htm
Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2009 1:01 am
by Radley Rambler
Changing tack a bit. The decision of whether to appeal should be fairly straightforward based on the following two criteria:
1. The robustness of the Conference's rationale for the 5 point deduction as expressed in their written report that the club will soon receive
and before people say 'well dur'
2. How many points we pick up in the next three games which will be completed within the 14 day window in which we can launch an appeal. If we gain at least 6 points, then an appeal seems worth it (assuming 1. doesn't scupper it). This is because if successful, we're back in the play-off hunt and if not successful and an 11 point penalty is imposed, then we should still be out of the relegation zone.
If however, we do not achieve 6 points, an appeal seems pointless due to the lack of play-off hopes even if successful and the increased relegation risk if an increased penalty is imposed.
Discuss.
Re:
Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2009 2:22 am
by recordmeister
"Radley Rambler" wrote:
Discuss.
I don't think Track and Field Atletics events have anything to do with it...
Re:
Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2009 8:03 am
by A-Ro
"Radley Rambler" wrote:Changing tack a bit. The decision of whether to appeal should be fairly straightforward based on the following two criteria:
1. The robustness of the Conference's rationale for the 5 point deduction as expressed in their written report that the club will soon receive
and before people say 'well dur'
2. How many points we pick up in the next three games which will be completed within the 14 day window in which we can launch an appeal. If we gain at least 6 points, then an appeal seems worth it (assuming 1. doesn't scupper it). This is because if successful, we're back in the play-off hunt and if not successful and an 11 point penalty is imposed, then we should still be out of the relegation zone.
If however, we do not achieve 6 points, an appeal seems pointless due to the lack of play-off hopes even if successful and the increased relegation risk if an increased penalty is imposed.
Discuss.
I wonder if anyone at the club has the capacity to think this through as rationally as this.
Capacity is probably the wrong word, emotional detachment perhaps.
Re:
Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2009 11:15 am
by Yellow River
"Radley Rambler" wrote:Changing tack a bit. The decision of whether to appeal should be fairly straightforward based on the following two criteria:
1. The robustness of the Conference's rationale for the 5 point deduction as expressed in their written report that the club will soon receive
and before people say 'well dur'
2. How many points we pick up in the next three games which will be completed within the 14 day window in which we can launch an appeal. If we gain at least 6 points, then an appeal seems worth it (assuming 1. doesn't scupper it). This is because if successful, we're back in the play-off hunt and if not successful and an 11 point penalty is imposed, then we should still be out of the relegation zone.
If however, we do not achieve 6 points, an appeal seems pointless due to the lack of play-off hopes even if successful and the increased relegation risk if an increased penalty is imposed.
Discuss.
I fully agree with this sensible approach. A caller on the RadOx phone-in said something very similar.
Re:
Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2009 11:26 am
by Matt D
"A-Ro" wrote:
I wonder if anyone at the club has the capacity to think this through as rationally as this.
Capacity is probably the wrong word, emotional detachment perhaps.
eminently sensible, and i think this is exactly how the club will approach this.
another reason why tuesday night was so disappointing.
looking at things the other way round, if we don't get this points target, but pick up a few, how will things look then? i hope that having seen that despite the club's confidence going into the hearing, there's really no reading as to how these things will go.
Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:59 pm
by Snake
Yes, the points gained in the next three matches are a factor, as is how other clubs get on so we can see the points gap to 5th place on Saturday 24th of January. Also significant will be how the team plays in those three games – like was it as good as against Ebbsfleet or as poor as it was against York?
Overall, even after waiting to see what will happen in the next three games I think we’ll still have a dilemma as things won’t be that much clearer, points wise.
Either way I think we should appeal, as we didn’t try to obtain a deliberate advantage and the penalty is way too harsh for a simple administrative mistake.
You can never predict with any certainty what will happen when rules are challenged in a formal setting, be it in the High Court or the Kangaroo version run by the footballing authorities - but what if we did appeal and lose? Do people really think we’d go down if we had 11 points taken off us?
Re:
Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2009 11:36 pm
by boris
"Snake" wrote:Do people really think we’d go down if we had 11 points taken off us?
Did people really think we'd go down after Smith and Merry ousted Kassam? Never say never... (you should know this if you're an OUFC fan)
Re:
Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2009 1:08 am
by A-Ro
"Snake" wrote:Do people really think we’d go down if we had 11 points taken off us?
We'll be in a better place to judge after the next 3 games, not a much better place but a better place nonetheless.
Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 11:27 am
by A-Ro
Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 2:59 pm
by A-Ro
John Moules has stated in the Non League paper that the Conference organisers are a disgrace, Strudwick should stand down and we should all get our docked points back.
Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 3:28 pm
by slappy
I am fed up with so many things:-
The league selling the official internet rights to Premium TV on a 20 year deal. I think the official site could be a lot better. Having to go past that annoying advert twice just to log in. Havign to pay to listen to interviews and see highlights.
These stupid points deductions - I could understand if the player was supposed to be suspended. All 4 clubs affected should join forces and appeal.
Setanta. As GY pointed out on that other thread, losing say 3 home Saturday games is the difference between renewing a season ticket for some people. Whilst it might benefit some smaller clubs to get a bit of tv money, for us it is more of a hindrance which we could do without. I was then wondering if league 2 have tv games / how many Saturdays say Aldershot play this season?