Proud of the chairman

[Sonny]

4 minutes ago, Inspector Lestrade said:

 

Agree i'm really impressed with their progress and if they carry on as they have been over the past few years then they can start to dream.    

 

It’s frustrating isn’t it. Although a small mitigation is that they expect less (currently) so will more readily accept their recruitment methods etc. I guess it will get to a do or die moment for them at some point.

 

I utterly fear changes in ownership as it’s such a pivotal moment for the clubs future. It would be better for us to become more sustainable and progressive under Chansiri than throw the dice but something definitely needs to change as it’s clearly not working at the minute, regardless of whether we get punished on this occasion.

 

Maybe we have started to change, or been forced to, but I’m afraid until he gets some specialists in to run the business and the football side then I don’t have much faith.

 

[Guest ka58]

1 hour ago, Neon Nick said:

I ain't worried about my Missus, or dying alone, just saying that this current situation, is champagne & oysters compared to the 1970's.  I demand nothing, because "demands" are irrelevant,  Wednesday is what they are, across the decades, either support them or don't.

You’ve just gone from last 20 years to comparing it to the 1970s.

[Inspector Lestrade]

7 minutes ago, Sonny said:

 

It’s frustrating isn’t it. Although a small mitigation is that they expect less (currently) so will more readily accept their recruitment methods etc. I guess it will get to a do or die moment for them at some point.

 

I utterly fear changes in ownership as it’s such a pivotal moment for the clubs future. It would be better for us to become more sustainable and progressive under Chansiri than throw the dice but something definitely needs to change as it’s clearly not working at the minute, regardless of whether we get punished on this occasion.

 

Maybe we have started to change, or been forced to, but I’m afraid until he gets some specialists in to run the business and the football side then I don’t have much faith.

 

 

I know where you're coming from but again clubs have brought in specialists and still failed to up.  

 

Just had a thought I'm gonna recommend that @rickygoo takes over financial side, @gurujuan the transfer side and everyone to answer to @Lord Snooty .

 

 We do need to find a business model to suit us most urgently.  

Edited December 6, 2019 by Inspector Lestrade

[archieswfc]

2 hours ago, PortlandOwl said:

He's been here 5 years and are we really any better off? I'd argue no.

We've had two play off campaigns and if we don't lose points this season might be on for a third. I'd argue yes.

[shezzas left peg]

Having had time to sit think and fully take stock of the situation, It scares me.

The realisation is hitting home and I can't help but think we're screwed no matter what Dc says, does, or tries. 

 

The EFL have already shown this year that they when it comes to championship football are above a court of law

(Fessi-gate). If they do get proved wrong they'll just do what the mornjey kid used to do, stamp their feet, throw a strop and take their ball home, either way we'll end up with the smelly end of the stick, however this unfolds. 

Edited December 6, 2019 by shezzas left peg

[Dick_Turpin]

41 minutes ago, shezzas left peg said:

Having had time to sit think and fully take stock of the situation, It scares me.

The realisation is hitting home and I can't help but think we're screwed no matter what Dc says, does, or tries. 

 

The EFL have already shown this year that they when it comes to championship football are above a court of law

(Fessi-gate). If they do get proved wrong they'll just do what the mornjey kid used to do, stamp their feet, throw a strop and take their ball home, either way we'll end up with the smelly end of the stick, however this unfolds. 

How many more times....FF was charged by the FA not the EFL.

 

And it’s not a matter of being above the law - it’s a different level of proof from a criminal case it’s is a well accepted, well worn legal distinction. 

[casbahowl]

1 hour ago, Sonny said:

 

Brentford have made fantastic progress. Selling players (alongside having an actual plan with the right people to implement the actual plan) has facilitated that progress. They started from a very different based to us. Promotion is not the only bench mark. They’ve successfully avoided embargo’s and EFL charges (whilst building a new stadium).

 

We can only hope it turns out OK this time and any progress we make will be achieved by emulating them (or getting very lucky). Any better than ‘OK’ is currently a pipe dream.

They also have a business model which chose to abandon their academy to concentrate on a policy of investing in young players produced by other clubs.

Imagine the meltdown on here if we adopted the same policy?

[Inspector Lestrade]

15 minutes ago, rickygoo said:

How many more times....FF was charged by the FA not the EFL.

 

And it’s not a matter of being above the law - it’s a different level of proof from a criminal case it’s is a well accepted, well worn legal distinction. 

 

Surely it's not that difficult to take their lead from the court.  Its one hell of a hint. 

[Dick_Turpin]

11 minutes ago, Inspector Lestrade said:

 

Surely it's not that difficult to take their lead from the court.  Its one hell of a hint. 

They did - the judge gave them a hell of a hint. 

[Sonny]

14 minutes ago, casbahowl said:

They also have a business model which chose to abandon their academy to concentrate on a policy of investing in young players produced by other clubs.

Imagine the meltdown on here if we adopted the same policy?

 

I agree, I don’t think there’d be much understanding for that policy. People would come round though if they were to see results. Everything is about results.

[Inspector Lestrade]

21 minutes ago, rickygoo said:

They did - the judge gave them a hell of a hint. 

 

Should take the hint from his/her judgement (based on the evidence) not his opinion which is just opinion.  

[casbahowl]

17 minutes ago, Sonny said:

 

I agree, I don’t think there’d be much understanding for that policy. People would come round though if they were to see results. Everything is about results.

Agreed, I personally think the Brentford approach is the way to go. The PL accadamy’s have a budget in excess of most championship clubs and can poach who they want from who they want.

The Brentford business model was always going to evolve because of that and good luck to them!

[Dick_Turpin]

3 minutes ago, Inspector Lestrade said:

 

Should take the hint from his/her judgement (based on the evidence) not his opinion which is just opinion.  

His judgement was an opinion in the first place

 

"I have to accept that it is possible, albeit in my judgement unlikely, that Mr Pearce was mistaken and therefore I cannot be satisfied to a criminal standard that the word 'n*****' was used and I therefore find Mr Forestieri not guilty as charged."

 

The use of the phrase criminal standard is key here. FA tribunals use civil standards as their benchmark - on balance of probabilities. The judge's remarks although he found FF credible as well makes an FA hearing perfectly understandable - may even have forced their hand -  and not part of any vendetta or the football authorities acting in an unlawful way.

 

The persecution complex is tiresome and obscures more fundamental issues.

 

 

[SiJ]

I can't realy be proud of him for this latest mess...

 

Fair play, he's standing up for himself and hopefully he is proven to be right. 

 

But...he constantly banged on about FFP during those fans forums and yet never seemed to heed his own warnings. 

 

With a little bit of guidance and know how he could have made his vast investment go so much further than it has done. 

 

It is borderline criminal that we've spent the sort of money we have done so and find ourselves no better off than when he came...albeit things could be oh so different had we taken one of those chances in the play offs. 

 

Still - we have paid for a boom and bust approach.

[Inspector Lestrade]

1 minute ago, rickygoo said:

His judgement was an opinion in the first place

 

"I have to accept that it is possible, albeit in my judgement unlikely, that Mr Pearce was mistaken and therefore I cannot be satisfied to a criminal standard that the word 'n*****' was used and I therefore find Mr Forestieri not guilty as charged."

 

The use of the phrase criminal standard is key here. FA tribunals use civil standards as their benchmark - on balance of probabilities. The judge's remarks although he found FF credible as well makes an FA hearing perfectly understandable - may even have forced their hand -  and not part of any vendetta or the football authorities acting in an unlawful way.

 

The persecution complex is tiresome and obscures more fundamental issues.

 

 

 

 

He had to go on the evidence.

 

I never mentioned  anything about a vendetta, your destroying an argument I never made or even agree with( at this point). 

[Dick_Turpin]

1 minute ago, Inspector Lestrade said:

 

 

He had to go on the evidence.

 

I never mentioned  anything about a vendetta, your destroying an argument I never made or even agree with( at this point). 

The vendetta etc was re a general feeling about this case on here.

 

The key is the reference to criminal standard proof. The judge did look at the evidence and broadly seems to be saying I think he did it but it's not beyond reasonable doubt - so he might not have therefore I have to acquit him. The FA don't work to that level of proof. He probably did it is the basis of guilt in civil law.  Just the way it is. You might not like it but it's not new or exceptional - it's just the way the courts and UK law operate. They aren't going to change that because an obscure footballer gets accused of racism.  

[Inspector Lestrade]

34 minutes ago, rickygoo said:

The vendetta etc was re a general feeling about this case on here.

 

The key is the reference to criminal standard proof. The judge did look at the evidence and broadly seems to be saying I think he did it but it's not beyond reasonable doubt - so he might not have therefore I have to acquit him. The FA don't work to that level of proof. He probably did it is the basis of guilt in civil law.  Just the way it is. You might not like it but it's not new or exceptional - it's just the way the courts and UK law operate. They aren't going to change that because an obscure footballer gets accused of racism.  

 

Agree but my point is that they should take the lead from the courts.

 

When the courts find footballers guilty of a crime you never see the FA/EFL reward the player or find them not guilty, they take the lead from the courts. 

[Dick_Turpin]

4 minutes ago, Inspector Lestrade said:

 

Agree but my point is that they should take the lead from the courts.

 

When the courts find footballers guilty of a crime you never see the FA/EFL reward the player or find them not guilty, they take the lead from the courts. 

Because if you're guilty by criminal standards you'll be guilty by civil standards too. The converse doesn't apply.

 

[Inspector Lestrade]

2 minutes ago, rickygoo said:

Because if you're guilty by criminal standards you'll be guilty by civil standards too. The converse doesn't apply.

 

 

the best of both worlds

[matthefish2002]

11 minutes ago, Inspector Lestrade said:

 

Agree but my point is that they should take the lead from the courts.

 

When the courts find footballers guilty of a crime you never see the FA/EFL reward the player or find them not guilty, they take the lead from the courts. 

 

I think the FA would have left it to the courts normally but when its a sensitive subject as racism they have to be seen to be taking a stand.