daznathe Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 i am of the opinion that when the leeds game got an £85000 payout, the prices should have been reduced. now i think if the ground was full and it spurred on the players, we might have been picking up nigh on a cool £million for an away day at old trafford. gutted. that said i understand why tta didnt do it, because all that matters to them now is the money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 i am of the opinion that when the leeds game got an £85000 payout, the prices should have been reduced. now i think if the ground was full and it spurred on the players, we might have been picking up nigh on a cool £million for an away day at old trafford. gutted. that said i understand why tta didnt do it, because all that matters to them now is the money. The FA cup is a bonus and you take what you get from it as soon as it is presented. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJ33 Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 also leeds would have to agree, which is doubtful. It could also have increased the number of their fans and then they filled the rochdale road end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webmonkey Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 Also, just by being in the draw doesn't mean we would have been drawn against Manchester United (or Kettering for that matter). The FA allocate ball numbers based on League and then Alphabetically. L is close to O, but not enough to make us the same number in the draw. Ste Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shefflatic Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 webmonkey, is taylor definately out or is it an attempt at reverse psycology? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
real Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 i am of the opinion that when the leeds game got an £85000 payout, the prices should have been reduced. now i think if the ground was full and it spurred on the players, we might have been picking up nigh on a cool £million for an away day at old trafford. gutted. that said i understand why tta didnt do it, because all that matters to them now is the money. So, IF the ground was full we MIGHT have won. And IF that had happened, we MIGHT have drawn ManU. If all that happened, the decision would have backfired, but there are 2 MIGHT and an IF before you can conclude. Then again, the ground PROBABLY wouldn't have been full anyway, we MIGHT not have won anyway, and we PROBABLY wouldn't have drawn ManU. Chances are it wouldn't have been full, who knows what the result would have been, and chances are we wouldn't have drawn Manu. Well done for 20:20 hindsight though. What would you have said if we'd got Swindon away? Would you have been on here accaliming a good decision? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edhunteruk Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 Also, just by being in the draw doesn't mean we would have been drawn against Manchester United (or Kettering for that matter). The FA allocate ball numbers based on League and then Alphabetically. L is close to O, but not enough to make us the same number in the draw. Ste we got beat so its a pointless thread....again... like the other year.if we had beat huddersfield we would of got chelsea...we didnt so its an end to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsslatic Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 Also, just by being in the draw doesn't mean we would have been drawn against Manchester United (or Kettering for that matter). The FA allocate ball numbers based on League and then Alphabetically. L is close to O, but not enough to make us the same number in the draw. Ste Read your own articles Cup Second Round Draw If we'd have beaten Leeds, we'd have been ball 9 and drawn Kettering, and as Kettering were at home we would have been ball 51 or whatever they were yesterday and drawn United. Said it yesterday though, there's no point thinking about it. We weren't good enough to beat them full stop, it's not like we can kick ourselves for playing a weakened side etc. And re: the original post, we were so toothless that evening the only thing that could have helped us was Pav...an extra few thousand on the gate wouldn't compensate for the lack of any firepower or creativity up top. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 Read your own articles Cup Second Round Draw If we'd have beaten Leeds, we'd have been ball 9 and drawn Kettering, and as Kettering were at home we would have been ball 51 or whatever they were yesterday and drawn United. Said it yesterday though, there's no point thinking about it. We weren't good enough to beat them full stop, it's not like we can kick ourselves for playing a weakened side etc. And re: the original post, we were so toothless that evening the only thing that could have helped us was Pav...an extra few thousand on the gate wouldn't compensate for the lack of any firepower or creativity up top. I think he means we wouldn't have been the same ball number as Leeds in the draw for the second round. Therefore we wouldn't have played Kettering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsslatic Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 I think he means we wouldn't have been the same ball number as Leeds in the draw for the second round. Therefore we wouldn't have played Kettering. Surely as Kettering were the home team we'd have been allocated their ball number. It would be nonsense to start allocating ball numbers on the basis of the highest league side in each tie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Latics_Fanatic Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 (edited) I think he means we wouldn't have been the same ball number as Leeds in the draw for the second round. Therefore we wouldn't have played Kettering. I think i seem to remember Latics & Leeds being allocated the same ball for the second round before the game was played. Could be wrong but i'm sure i heard that. anyway, now point saying 'if' the facts are we didnt sell out the ground, we didnt win, we may have lost to Kettering (Considering how good they played), no big money tie against United. Edited November 30, 2009 by Latics_Fanatic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Ritchie Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 also leeds would have to agree, which is doubtful. It could also have increased the number of their fans and then they filled the rochdale road end. I've just posted that on another thread (or something similar but slightly less articulate). should have read here first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bring Back Ronnie Moore Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 (edited) It's totally irrelevant anyway. If we had progressed we might have faced Man Utd, but we could have faced anybody else. Life isn't pre-determined, actions and choices dictate future circumstances. Our universe is constantly branching off with every decision we make or action we take. Us beating Leeds would have spawned a different timeline than this one where the events that have played out since we lost to Leeds are different. By stating that Oldham would play Man Utd in the FA Cup if we had beaten Leeds is like stating Leeds were always going to beat Oldham before hand, not because you thought they would, but because you knew the outcome of the match beforehand and nothing could change it. Jeez, have none of you seen Back To The Future. Edited November 30, 2009 by Bring Back Pukka Pies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigfinLatic Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 Jeez, have none of you seen Back To The Future. ... or fringe... or flashforward... Lets keep it contemporary! However, if it means I get a hoverboard, and Papa Smurf gets govered in horse-manure, then fire up that delorian doc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny punkster Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 ... or fringe... or flashforward... Lets keep it contemporary! However, if it means I get a hoverboard, and Papa Smurf gets govered in horse-manure, then fire up that delorian doc. sound like a groovy acid trip, maaaan ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dish Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 webmonkey, is taylor definately out or is it an attempt at reverse psycology? Definately out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 i am of the opinion that when the leeds game got an £85000 payout, the prices should have been reduced. now i think if the ground was full and it spurred on the players, we might have been picking up nigh on a cool £million for an away day at old trafford. gutted. that said i understand why tta didnt do it, because all that matters to them now is the money. Daz, I've re read your post several times. I still don't get it. If the TTA were only bothered about money, they would have wanted to progress. The don't pick the team the manager does. There is no guarantee that the groudnw as full the players would have been spurred on, if you cannot spur them on for a cup game v Leeds, you cannot spur them on full stop. Of course they are bothered about money, that's their job. The managers job is to motivate and pick the team the players job is to go out an d play. I don't know if you know, but the TTA actually do pay out more than is coming in every month, if you or I did that, we'd get our house repossed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daznathe Posted December 1, 2009 Author Share Posted December 1, 2009 i am of the opinion that if this would have happened at the start of tta's reign, they (or rather the freshly appointed jarvis chap) would have used the £85000 positively, in a way that could maybe help us progress, rather than just snaffling it. like i said though, i understand why they did it. its for the same reasons that the new ground wont be a £60m super arena with loads of great facilities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wozz_oafc Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 Daz I think your missing the one major factor in all of this. LEEDS ARE A VERY GOOD SIDE. No matter who or what people at our club did differently this was not going to change. I would hazard a guess with no Leeds fans there they would still be favourites and would have probably won. Just because we lost doesnt mean the players werent motivated or trying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny punkster Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 If the TTA were only bothered about money, they would have wanted to progress. In the world of present day football, money=progress.we are in no better state on the pitch than 5 years ago...but the question now is" where are they looking to progress in..on the pitch or away from footballing matters..like property?" The don't pick the team the manager does. and they picked the managers..and they give them the budgets There is no guarantee that the groudnw as full the players would have been spurred on, if you cannot spur them on for a cup game v Leeds, you cannot spur them on full stop. swing and roundabouts..give the fans something to cheer about(remember colchester at home?)and the fans will respond. Of course they are bothered about money, that's their job. The managers job is to motivate and pick the team the players job is to go out an d play. I don't know if you know, but the TTA actually do pay out more than is coming in every month, if you or I did that, we'd get our house repossed. so..didn't they not think this could still be the case now 5 years ago? name a club that continually makes an annual profit...theres not one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daznathe Posted December 1, 2009 Author Share Posted December 1, 2009 Daz I think your missing the one major factor in all of this. LEEDS ARE A VERY GOOD SIDE. No matter who or what people at our club did differently this was not going to change. I would hazard a guess with no Leeds fans there they would still be favourites and would have probably won. Just because we lost doesnt mean the players werent motivated or trying. i can assure you i am not. i just come from the school that every little 0.1% counts, thats all. i also like to speculate on hypothetical scenarios, feel free to ignore it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tangerinedreams Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 Daz, I've re read your post several times. I still don't get it. If the TTA were only bothered about money, they would have wanted to progress. The don't pick the team the manager does. There is no guarantee that the groudnw as full the players would have been spurred on, if you cannot spur them on for a cup game v Leeds, you cannot spur them on full stop. Of course they are bothered about money, that's their job. The managers job is to motivate and pick the team the players job is to go out an d play. I don't know if you know, but the TTA actually do pay out more than is coming in every month, if you or I did that, we'd get our house repossed. How true!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.