mattsgrandad

Your comment implies it's a sell-out for the Huddersfield fans which must mean ticket only for the away fans - Do we know that for a fact?

Could you please enlighten me as to what is factually incorrect about my statement. The last winning side was that put out against Plymouth - is that correct or not?

Thanks for putting forward the facts - just two observations: 1. The game at Rochdale only lasted 8 minutes or so - that starting eleven didn't constitute a winning side - my comment could have applied just as equally to that game. 2. Lewi (plus Feeney, Kelly etc) are what I call 'option' players and that sometimes means one of them may be played from the start or be a sub. Furman and Lee are not option players - barring injury or a prolonged run of bad form, they should always be in the starting eleven.

So even more revenue lost.... I know there probably wouldn't have been a great number of Saints fans willing to make the trip but you can guarantee there will be even less for the rearranged mid-week game.

Quick recap on this thread. Most managers & coaches (Markoasis apart) strive to turn out a settled confident team. The manager clearly warned against complacency before the game then contradicted that by dropping two in-form players, one of them being our most influential player (a bit like Liverpool without Gerrard). He includes a player who is due to miss the next three league games. A cup run was essential to maintain player confidence and boost interest amongst the stay-awayers. Sorry, but IMO a mistake that will have far greater repercussions than a single lost game.

.... which it would appear is 100% better than PD's foresight.

Gave up my season ticket after last season but still go to every home game and, yes I'll be there on Saturday and as always, hoping for the best but quietly expecting something less. For anyone contemplating a boycott of this game as a result of today's FA cup defeat, can I ask you to reconsider. If you attended the abandoned Rochdale game then use the re-arranged game as the vehicle for voicing youir disquiet. Instead of getting a replacement ticket, ask for your money back. We don't get any of the receipts from the game so your non-attendance won't hit the club financially and, given 'Dales worst cup performance than ours, I doubt whether there'll be much of a home crowd so the lack of away support shouldn't be a factor either. In any case, a reported 2:1 crowd ratio in our favour today didn't provide the spark for the players any more than it's likely to at Spotland. If you really care about your club, you will be there on Saturday.

What's that got to do with it??? Unless of course you're PD in disguise and wishing you had you used a bit of foresight.

Basic rule - YOU DO NOT CHANGE A WINNING SIDE

I reckon it'll be in the last quarter of the season. By then, both clubs will be in mid-table mediocracy and attendances will be dwindling - need a local derby to rekindle interest On a serious not though - well done to SC's immediate declaration of a free attendance for the Latics fans who went to the original game - I'm sure it was that factor that made Rochdale agree to the decision.

Continuing the devil's advocate theme - albeit on a slightly different tangent... Doesn't this situation promote the concept of a 'pay per game' scheme. I'm not that familiar with the way that a non-contract arrangement works i.e. whether the player only receives payments for the period in which he is elligible to play but if that were the case then his absence won't pose any financial implication and could influence the decisionas to whether he is given another opportunity. Could that also be a solution for the Feeney type situations where players aren't available for other reasons.

Forgive my ignorance but was that pre-season or the very early stages of the season? My point is that any player enjoying a decent spell of form in the run up to contract negotiations will inevitably be influenced by his advisors to consider other options before tying themselves down. Pre-season and out of contract is different altogether.

Not so much complacency as near-bankrupcy. Like it or note, Latics cannot afford to pay competitive wages and I can't see Kieran Lee or anyone else for that matter accepting any contract extension whilst they believe they can command a better rate elsewhere at the end of their current contract. A real dilemna for the Latics - the better they play, the more likelihood of attracting interest from other clubs.

Receipt probably not linked to ticket number. Scenario: two stubs presented for replacement tickets and receipt presented for two replacement tickets - see the problem?

Old habits die hard....... At least his non-contract status doesn't tie us in to another bad signing.

Isn't there a police stipulation that seven days notice is required for a match - hence why cup replays are played in the week following the original match - so a decision Wednesday means match cannot occur before the following Wednesday.

I was offered a ticket for tonight's game - but I had this feeling that the weather would play it's part so I declined the offer. I know I wasn't there and didn't see the conditions for myself but I find it strange that the conditions deteriorated so much within 10 minutes. Surely, the conditions (and the immediate weather forecast) must have been obvious before kick-off. The cynic in me is saying that the game started to avoid having to reimburse ticket holders - I'm pretty sure that an abandoned game is treated as having been played rather than voided as would have been a postponed game. At the end of the day it's Rochdale's call as to whether they 'honour' the original tickets. The Latics can only suggest they take that option but cannot legally or morally retain any monies paid by the Latics fans. It'll be interesting to see how it is resolved.

Looks like we've got a player who can kick..... all we need to do is paint a face on the ball and bingo......

But they are most likely the fans (real or armchair) of those clubs who happen to live in the Chron's catchment area - it's a bit of a 'preach to the converted' message for those people. Having said that, there must be some unattached or floating footy fans in the Tameside area who might be tempted - maybe the club could find a transport partner to offer free or subsidised transport to BP (dread to think what replies this comment might bring )

The Chron reports the City, Man U & Rochdale games - doesn't make me want to go!

I was quick to jump into this debate on the original thread with a hastily constructed cynical view that only people with a City connection would use this promotion to get a cheaper attendance than they would otherwise have paid and that an expectation of several (tens/hundreds) City fans queuing at the ticket office was never going to be realised. However, on reflection, we all have to recognise that Latics need to explore EVERY opportunity - either as a one-off as in this case or, as I and several other posters have commented, via a sustained campaign throughout the season. I will never be convinced that any City season ticket holders would make a regular repeat visit BUT ... if they are local, their kids might - my grandson has been to a couple of City games as a guest of his friend's dad - it's not beyond the realms of possibility that we could reverse that and entice his kids to BP. Free admittance for Under 13s with an adult is the way forward (without the restriction of having to Q at the ticket office of course).

Surely, that's what training & reserve team games are for. Clearly, their performances/attitudes hasn't impressed PD enough to warrant reversing the decision to place them on the transfer list.

Except of course that these are young, eager and (hopefully) fit lads - the attributes that PD craves in his players - plus an ability to play football the way he wants it played. Can we say the same about the transfer listed players ?

Problem is the players know they won't get a game - if our 'best' fringe player (Gregan) can't make the team then there's not really much validity in that argument. PD appears to have set his stall out in terms of the players needed to maintain the early momentum and I can't see him changing his mind. In days gone by, it would have been easier to assist a player in getting a new club or pay him off but today's climate has ended that. What this situation tells us is that clubs either have to adopt the concept of a season-long contract for all players (with renewable options) or accept the consequence of being saddled with players they don't want.

Maybe it's the government-type excuse - the wrong sort of football that deters the premiership pretenders from plying their trade in the lower divisions. Is any fringe player too good for Division 1?