Jump to content

September65

Member
  • Content Count

    293
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by September65

  1. We have to sign a leader of the line who is proven, good quality and will stay fit. The whole system seems to be geared to this. With such a Fletcher-type we have options. I'm not necessarily suggesting Rhodes should play, but any chance of Rhodes coming good depends on him playing in a two up front alongside such a "target man", though Rhodes coming good would be a bonus. We all appreciate we have to get value for money and we don't have much cash to spend but this is the one thing we have to be prepared to spend on. We have to get this right and soon, otherwise it co
  2. I don't think we should appeal. We clearly broke the rules and we are lucky the punishment is for next season. The EFL is a shambles, awful, but we are still guilty. I just hope we conduct our business in the right way going forward AND WITH PROPER ADVICE to the Chairman on all matters. Every time I see someone post that Chansiri should take on the EFL, Steve Gibson and everyone else I have partisan emotions for a few seconds, then realise I have a lifelong support for a football team and not a Chairman who happens to be the current custodian, and I don't ha
  3. yes, great point. I noted this too. We had no idea what we might be dealing with at that time.
  4. in a way, but it was never established that there was a "plan" to backdate the Heads of Terms into July. She certainly counselled the Chairman against doing this - "Chairman I only will say that I don't feel comfortable signing a document of a transaction that is backdated". That was good advice in my view. And the fact KM was seen as a good and reliable witness will I think have helped our case's credibility and reassured the Panel that she was a check and balance on the Chairman who (as ever) needed strong advice from those around him.
  5. I am not sure, having read the document in full, I would go as far as to say the EFL as an organisation was vindictive. Incompetent in the extreme, yes. However, there as, as the report states, "mutual recriminations by each side involved in the discussions, with allegations of dishonesty, bad faith and deception". In particular our FD being accused of lying (point 118). Also the EFL accusing DC of using his lack of English to muddy the waters (para 15) and categorically dismissed by the panel: "we do not accept the contention of the EFL that he (DC) gave evidence in a manner "app
  6. I have given Monk the benefit of the doubt until the last couple of games, but I'm now convinced he has to go. The difference between winning or losing last night's game could still prove to be the deciding factor as to which league we play in next season. For such a critical game you don't give a kid his debut (he did ok, I know), and leave Luongo on the bench. And don't give me fitness issues, it just required one last effort in the final game before a few weeks off. And it was a bad decision to play Nuhiu from the start - he is an impact sub. The same with the Fulh
  7. If a decent offer came in, I'd sell. We could have got big fees for FF, Reach if we'd sold at the right time. The whole FFP thing could have been avoided. And we could have moved Westwood on. Problem is, I'm not sure who's going to fork out say £5m for Iorfa in this climate. He's a risky purchase.
  8. Monk came into a very difficult job when Bruce left suddenly. I think everyone agrees that. He did well until Christmas, mainly because Fletcher was very good as a focal point and the others played around him. For whatever reason the wheels came off at Stoke and the rest has been dire. If Bruce had stayed we would have challenged for play-offs. Under a proper manager like Pearson or McCarthy (or even Warnock god forbid) we would have been competitive. Before and since lockdown we have simply been poor. Last night under one of these proper managers we would have beaten Bor
  9. No desire to go and win the game when it was there on a plate. Why?????
  10. OK, thanks all for clarifying that the Panel is still considering evidence and hasn't made its decision. I guess I thought that because de Marco was busy on the Derby case, ours must have completed, but perhaps he's done all he needs to for us.
  11. My understanding (which I am happy to be corrected on) is that the Panel sat for three weeks. I assumed they sat as long as they needed to in order to make a decision. I don't think they are considering the evidence currently are they? It that is correct, and they for whatever reason haven't made a decision, what are they waiting for? To see how many points everyone ends up with so they can make a deduction that either maximises or minimises impact? To wait until the Derby case is heard? Sorry but I just don't get the whole thing.
  12. Who knows? The panel isn't sitting currently though is it?
  13. The Independent Commission has sat, finished, made its decision, hasn't it? So why hasn't the EFL communicated it?
  14. There is no leadership. There hasn't been any since Loovens left. Lees is not a leader. Nor is Bannan. Nor Borner. Nor any of the others. And because we are rudderless we are too nice. Last night is a good example. No protests when our goal was disallowed - the decision wasn't going to be reversed but good teams with leaders get in the ref's ear in that situation. The same when the elbow went in Borner's face - their guy gets booked and potentially sent off rather than scoring. We've seen that sort of sorry capitulation so many times it's like a recurring nightm
  15. For many of us it is very important. The club belongs to the supporters and, you can argue, to the community. Chansiri may own SWFC currently but he is merely a custodian in historical terms.
×
×
  • Create New...