Jump to content

Anlaby Owl

Sheffield Wednesday Fan
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

309 Excellent

About Anlaby Owl

  • Rank
    Sheffield Wednesday Reserves

Profile Information

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I suppose the real marker for how expensive it is, is the prices charged by other clubs. I have other interests aside from football and the price overall between them is about the same as football. I can't really stretch my finances to any of these at the moment but that doesn't mean that football is expensive, it just means my disposable income is nearly none existent. When i was a teenager and didn't have a mortgage, bills etc, it was comparatively much greater. Mine won't be a popular opinion but personally, although prohibitive for me, i don't think the prices at hilsborough are significantly greater than in 1990 when you think the price of a pint was about 80p.
  2. That is one tiny area of their ground, with perhaps 300 to 400 fans grouping to have a bit of a singsong. Its not a touch on the kop, even when it is relatively subdued. Our own fans made far more noise than theirs. When you live in the town you realise how small they really are for a 2nd tier club. Not much bigger than scunny really, predominantly because they dont have the hardcore following that wednesday have.
  3. You are jolking about hull right? Their home allocation is nearly always half empty and when we played them (from what i could see) there were 2 unoccupied seats to every person except for the away end. They have to have a firework/light display to create an atmosphere!
  4. Why should a well supported club be allocated the same budget as the lesser supported clubs. The natural order for such things is for big investors to put their money into clubs with big support. This suggestion of a so called 'even playing field' is how the likes of bournemouth & brighton and have ended up in the premier league. I can honestly see the day when the likes of scunthorpe, gillingham and m k dons make up the premier league under the current system (yawn yawn) . This (the current system) is weighted against the' traditionally' big clubs who can (rules put aside) afford to invest in favour of the tin pot teams who rely entirely on sky money.
  5. The solution is easy. It involves owners being allowed to invest whatever they want as long as they own that amount (not borrow against club/club asssets) . Note i said invest, not loan to the club in return for interest or even an agreed reduction in return. This way, if poor decisions are made its the owner who takes a hit, not the club, not the fans and not the 'creditors'. It really isn't rocket science its just that those in positions of power want to manipulate the situation and so try to make it complicated.
  6. Theres no way Leeds, middlesborough and Forrest are much more than ten bob behind us in terms of expenditure so its going to be an interesting period.
  7. When the initial statement from the EFL came out i ALMOST commented on here. An acquaintence of mine who is qualified in such matters, had told me that the action of the EFL was likely to be unlawful on THREE (yes 3) counts which i have to admit i didn't completely understand. Two of these related to a restriction on trade that it seems none of the previous clubs to recieve sanctions had challenged. This lady specialises in financial law and told me the probable reason for this was that these clubs didn't want further scrutiny of their accounts but that as long as the companies accounts were accurate it was almost certain that the club would have no case to answer and the EFL would be forced to review its finacial rules if they were scrutinised in court. Another reason why i didnt post this on here earlier is that i couldn't get my head around the terminology used regarding the third count that basically says an organisation (usually regional councils but often a police force or the law its self) cannot punish someone/a company/organisation based on changes in legislation that occured after the event or in light of previous authorisation sanctioning the activity/action. This seems to be the one chansiri is referring to in the club statement. How much of it applies in this case im not sure but my source told me it was highly likely that all 3 would be applicable..
  8. I quite like the two deep midfield players, one being the tackler, the other the ball player, BUT in the modern game if a team is going to employ such tactics and still posess an attacking threat they need to sacrifice a defender and play two up top OR deploy wingbacks. The biggest problem however for me is that we have no threat in terms of pace down the middle. We don't seem to score any vardy/ian rush type goals from the position of being under threat then tripping the offside trap. Im sure forrestieri is the man for this. Ive read it dozens of times on here that he is no centre forward or can't play as the furthest man forward but surely his biggest problem is getting tangled up with bigger, more physical defenders. Given a 1 on 1 for pace with a big lump (a through ball from a high position) , id back forestieri nearly every time.
  9. Vedat muriqi is keeping atdhe out of the kosavo side. In many respects he is a lot like atdhe but scores more and regularly plays up front on his own. Moved to fabernache for a reported 3.25m so probably wouldn't cost a fortune.
  10. I recon that 2nd string could finish mid table so yes we have tremendous strength in depth.
  11. As weve all seen time and time again forestieri doesn't have the power/bulk to play in that advanced m/f role. Having him tussleing with opponents midfield players is just a waste of tallent. This is probably why many have him down as a wide player. As ive said elsewhere he dropped deep under carlos and later jos out of frustration. He is our most technically gifted player. If we played him as our most advanced forward he would frighten the life out of most championship defences and he would pull defenders out of position. He would give this team a totally different attacking option, especially against those teams that play a high back line.
  12. Ffs. It isn't rocket science. Out of carlos, jos, bullen and now monk, no one has allowed one our forwards to sit on the defenders shoulder. We had the situation with both carlos and jos where out of frustration the c.f was having to come deep to recieve the ball. Now we are playing atdhe there to recieve westwoods kicks. It wouldn't matter if we had suares. Whilst ever we persist in doing this we aren't going to score enough goals from open play, ie. by tripping the offside trap.
  13. The problem as i see it is having the right personel in the correct places. Westwood was able to pick out nuihu most of the time but then nuihu was stranded and we ended up loosing the ball. Nuihu was on the right of centre most times (certainly during the 1st half) If we had played harris on that side or had reach been higher up the pitch at least nuihu would have had an option. It wasn't too far off being workable. Sadly a miss is as good as a mile. To my mind if you are going to play nuihu that deep (in order to recieve the ball) you either... need to play at least 2 players beyond him in order to occupy the opponents back 4....or you need to have 2 target men in order to spread the opponents back line out and give westwood another choice of target. Either way i would want someone with pace in situ, alongside/close who could run at the defence. In effect with nuihu coming deep to recieve the ball hes stuck in a midfield role and as we saw the hull back line had an easy night because of it. The other option would be for westwood to release the ball quicker but we all know how that goes.
  14. I thought the same as you. Having said that the ref was poor. There was a foul in the second half, a blatant one and while the ref gave it he hesitated for several seconds and you could just tell from his expression that he didn't want to give it.
  • Create New...