Lags

47 minutes ago, GlossopLatic said:

 

Unfortunately despite the 115 charges against I can see them getting away with the whole thing.

And why not?. As far as I can see the Arab's have done right by City and locality. For me it's just the big clubs looking after themselves. 

Just wished Sir Jim really wanted a local boy project instead of Chelsea or ManUre. There again had he done so the big guns would have shot us down season one in the Premier league. 

1 hour ago, spanishfly said:

Am I missing something here? You can currently dive on many regular bus services to City's ground (well nearby and a short walk) from Oldham for £2 - and £2 to get back. This scheme is charging £6 return from the town centre. Is it just the added convenience of actually landing at the ground? Seems a typical Burnham masterplan to me.

What's it got to do with Burnham?

54 minutes ago, JoeP said:

 

I think, in this instance, we can complain about a business trying to gain more income. 

 

They don't need it. We do. What benefit to football is an impossibly rich club getting richer and us potentially missing out?

Totally understand your feelings on this Joe.....its just how the cookie crumbles. We live in a capitalist society 

Have latics not in the past offered the Manchester clubs ST holders in for a £5?. No one can complain about a business trying to gain more income.  Latics will just have to try harder to retain and encourage new supporters. Granted no matter what buses city put on the pull surely is the superstars and football on view. 

36 minutes ago, oafc1955 said:

ST holders don’t always turn up, just like at BP.

The do run a sell on scheme for ST holders if they can't make the match

56 minutes ago, Lee Sinnott said:

They sell out every week, don't they...?

I think they do and also have a sell on option for fans if they cant make the match. That said, the last night match live on Sky there were lots of empty seats. Can't remember if that was a cup game though,

6 minutes ago, dannyboy55555 said:

The wheels are coming off at Bromley. Struggling with squad depth and have had to make 4/5 signings to plug gaps who will take time to gel. I still fancy us to overhaul them.

 And those in between us too hopefully!!

Does it really matter on a fans MB that occasionally most posters can't remember every detail? Most if not all of our MP's and even Prime ministers it seems remember nowt or didn't read the brief. Give the bloke a rest!! 

The real frustrating thing for me during these past two poor outings is that both Barnet and Bromley have slipped up too. We could have been right on their heels now.

25 minutes ago, oafc1955 said:

Surely it’s more cost effective to build a side to win promotion from the NL and one that is also able to compete towards the top end of league 2 as I can’t see the better players that we need dropping down a division or two for a one year deal?

I agree, I missed out a very important NOT. Fixed it now with an edit

11 hours ago, Dave_Og said:

 

It seems a reasonable view that promotion this season would be an unexpected bonus but that the investment seen makes it a very clear objective for next.  But what one would assume to be our two principal strikers will be 34 & 36, and 35 & 37 in L2 should we get there, so not an obvious duo to push on in L2.  Hopefully Garner shows his worth but I really can't see what strategy was involved in his signing.

Barring injuries I'd expect Norwood to hold his own in League two next season should we pull off the unexpected. The 3rd year of his contract I wouldn't know it's too far off to gauge. Garner on the other hand I don't have a clue until I see him perform.

I just do NOT buy into building a side purely to get us out of the division then build again a side for League Two.

EDIT in capitals

16 hours ago, spanishfly said:

 Once promoted re-jig it. Simple really. 

I just wanted to pick up on this snippet. I disagree on this, the likes of Wrexham, Stockport and others before them have built sides to escape this division and instantly push on.  That's the way to go. 

As for the rest of your points I see the merit in them to a degree.

20 minutes ago, JoeP said:

 

How did the segregation work, out of interest?  Looks like there was loads of us in their end...

About 5 mins before kick off quite a few of us were marched along the touch line (Too many in the section) and put in the paddock next to the Kop end. Within 10 minutes had knives pulled on us for our scarves by those loveable scousers. I would have been 13 at the time.

After the match you ran the gauntlet to the coaches.

1 hour ago, TwistingMyMellon said:

I must admit I'm hoping Nuttall scores a few at Cheltenham now. Some of the reactions on here seem a bit over the top....

So do I, we need him off the books and not back here. As for OTT, not for me, he's been garbage. 

Sitting on the ball to tie his boots whilst play was still live in one match.  The defender didn't know what to do.  Brilliant. 

Nuttall flattered to deceive with his closing down. He would jog towards the player with the ball and never get within 10 foot of him. I'll agree a player with good  ball control and nous where to move to for space and time on the ball need not run too much, but sadly again this is not JN.  His scoring record was poor, his assist again were poor. Hardly won a header. No amount of booing will improve that (I never boo individuals or the collective team, I'd rather just not clap them off). He will be back unfortunately.

I've no sympathy for Nuttal or Willoughby. Nuttall regardless whether he runs or not has been a mega disappointment. The amount of money he's cost the club is just another issue. Willoughby on the other hand would just seem he's above his pay grade.

Once both finally leave the club neither won't be missed or spoke about much. 

The trouble as a team we've had is two fold.  No play maker in the middle of the park nor wide man with the flare to create plenty of chances for our goalscorer.  Our only player able to cross the ball as been Kitching. Sides that have stopped him have stopped us. 

Hopefully the business completed these past few weeks will address the short falls.

5 hours ago, sjk2008 said:

Check you out talking to Lags.

Treat people as you want to be treated and the reverse always happens. I take it this your old fella and 55 relates to his year of birth?.

I appreciated the info. 

8 hours ago, oafc1955 said:

Harry Vaughan gone on loan to Bristol Rovers.

What do the Harry Vaughan Boys make of this?

4 minutes ago, yarddog73 said:

It's official now.

One things for sure.... he'll be back

Some work out others don't.  I would be gob smacked if somehow Nuttall was playing like a world beater at Scunthorpe to deserve such a deal offer but his goal record there was decent. Just so odd he gets here and is complete shite.

Cheers everyone....Maybe he'll still be there recovering.

Off to the Caribbean 10th Feb, does anyone know the ETA for Frank in Antigua? Would be fantastic if I was there to see him arrive.

4 minutes ago, nzlatic said:

That is a completely different statement. 

Not really. They both tie together.  If you think 6 players out of the entire recruitment constitutes good business then that's your opinion, it's certainly not mine.

Hudson wasn't even first choice, he was back up, so now it's 5 first teamers. Plus Hobson and Raglan hardly featured!!

4 minutes ago, nzlatic said:

6 of the current first team were recruited under Unsworth and Thompson and I don’t think you’d get many arguing they shouldn’t be in the team (Hudson, Kitching, Hobson, Raglan, Lundstram and Norwood). Of the main first team signings (ie longer than 1 year contract) there’s only really Nuttall and Shelton that I would say haven’t worked at all. I really think this past recruitment thing is overblown.

 

All about opinions...but the vast majority of performances under DU were shockingly poor.