Search results

Might be better for some to re-read the article. it's still on the Telegraph website.

And would you think that that's because they have an anathema to companies whose names are alternate consonants and vowels, or do you think it might have some link to their behaviour?

Don't quite get this. Surely burying it under concrete is exactly the right thing to do with Leicester City memorabilia?

As a matter of interest, has any one checked how many of the clubs that own their ground have the ownership within the same company as the "football business". (Obviously excludes any clubs whose accounts are "a bit of a mess").

Edited that for you CD :D

I think that the point is that the actions (perhaps "inactions" would be a better word) don't match the rhetoric.

More of a charity case, unfortunately.

This was always my concern. I used to have debates on GMK with those who thought that cutting costs was the answer to everything (remember Tommy Atkins....). I tried to point out that cost cutting is only effective as part of an overall strategy that while resetting the cost base, still leaves...

A week on Saturday looks pretty vital. All the bottom 8 are involved in games against each other. We really need a win against Colchester that day. Maybe we should play George Hudson up front, given all the injuries?

Hence why I wrote "we all", two words that you appear to have missed.

I seem to recall posts last year, denying that moving to Sixfields would have/had any negative impact on performances. Maybe we all just fit the facts to reinforce whatever views we already hold.

Unless the deal gave Wasps the authority to tell SP what tactics to play and which players to sign, I think you may be reading a little too much into that.

And must be a (the?) major factor in the poor attendances. We're in April on Wednesday and we've had one home win since October - and that was a bit like a footballing re-enactment of the Alamo.

Really excellent win!

Cue someone mentioning Swindon.....

I don't recall that incident/statement, so it's difficult to comment. I would agree that it would be preferable if all "SBT senior members" (I assume that means Board/committee members) didn't make statements that contradicted Trust policy, but this is an organisation representing football...

Not sure I know what a "Wasps rally" is/was. I'm not sure that a person expressing a point of view in a meeting from a personal standpoint, differentiating that from an official statement of the agreed position of an organisation representing the supporters of a football club can really be...

As I recall, the only example of this was a comment from Jan, who also clarified that he was no longer a member of the SBT Board. As an "ordinary member" of the Trust, I don't see how he could claim to speak on behalf of them.

I agree. Less heat, more light.

That sounds broadly correct. I was just trying to make the point that given that background, I can understand why someone might feel the need to have chapter and verse before challenging.