Jump to content

New Owner


Jag
 Share

Message added by douglas clark

'Tis not the job of a moderator to stop people writing here. The rules are pretty simple:

reported ad hominem attacks will be investigated (and if found to be true) or write stuff that could get the site into trouble

and you'll either be warned / your post deleted, or - worst case scenario -  banned either temporarily or permanently.

This particular thread has had a vigorous exchange of views, and perhaps more heat than light. But the quality of the debate - it seems to me at least - is down to the lack of information.  That, in and of itself, means that whatever side you happen to be on is for a fan, very frustrating.

So, I have no intention of closing threads just because the quality of the postings isn't great. That is not the role of a moderator.

If you wake up the following morning you can always delete something you wish you'd never said.

 

 

 

 

 

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, jaf said:

so let me get this straight. 
 

you triumphantly share analysis from someone who doesn’t know our club - who I accept is well qualified - but which instantly looks counter intuitive 

you keep bleating on about how we should trust OUR fans instead of people with no association to the club

i am a fan

i scratch the surface - I even put my money where my mouth is and contact Kieran - I challenge and refute his analysis 

but this fan you don’t want to trust or accept? This fan you want to challenge and Not accept what he says and make your own assumptions that suit your arguments 

you couldn’t even say “ok you’ve contacted him , so let’s see what he says”  nope  he’s right , you’re right, I’m wrong ?? 

At  least we all know where we stand  

your posts are pointless biased reading 


oh btw  - Kieran came back to me and explained his assumptions and acknowledged that they meant quote / unquote his conclusions were flawed and could be termed - his words -  “a load of pish”

if there is anyone left with an open mind, Kieran and I will exchange further emails this weekend - he’s at a gig tonight  - to see if we can make some sense of all this combined  his calculations were done by taking averages from a few English clubs and extrapolating them onto scottish teams results  this is based in no forensic financial science and is entirely arbitrary and flawed therefore.  He seems a good guy and I am sure we can actually make some sense of stuff if we put our heads together  

 

the main I made was to quote his comment that our accounts were a ‘solid’ set of results do you dispute that ? If that’s triumphant then fine 
What am I not accepting ? !.....I wasn’t even referring to him ....I was trying to understand the point I outlined above which seems to me very simple and still not explained 

chill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, jaf said:

Yep, bigger attendance than the last time Leeds visited in November 2017

Second biggest attendance since April 2017 - only last seasons Sunderland match had a bigger attendance and not by much 

Not sure who claimed 23000 was capacity - I have checked back to start of 2012 season and there hasn't been a league attendance higher than 19000 in those 7 years

from the Barnsley FC club website.....
 

With a capacity of 23,287 since the 'Taylor Report' in the early-1990's led to the development of all-seater stadia, Oakwell is often termed a 'classic' football stadium and one of the few remaining grounds to have its floodlights on corner pylons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, javeajag said:

We all know managers get sacked all the time it’s a question of when and why ...And the point I clearly didn’t get across was sacking him might be an indication of how they are run ..... like why he was sacked 

Does it say in the article why he was sacked. Barnsley are in the bottom 3 of the championship at the moment.

Maybe they think a new manager will have a better chance of keeping them in the league.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:

Does it say in the article why he was sacked. Barnsley are in the bottom 3 of the championship at the moment.

Maybe they think a new manager will have a better chance of keeping them in the league.

I don't know if it was why, but he was outspoken about the owners recruitment policy, saying he needed some experience rather than just kids (I paraphrase). That probably doesn't help

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Dick Dastardly said:

I don't know if it was why, but he was outspoken about the owners recruitment policy, saying he needed some experience rather than just kids (I paraphrase). That probably doesn't help

I’d be surprised if when he took the job he didn’t know the clubs signing policy. He’ll have accepted the job with that remit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

I’d be surprised if when he took the job he didn’t know the clubs signing policy. He’ll have accepted the job with that remit. 

Can’t see Ian McCall working to that template, getting young inexperienced players foisted on him , I’m sure his lawyer has made sure he has a water tight contract.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, jlsarmy said:

Can’t see Ian McCall working to that template, getting young inexperienced players foisted on him , I’m sure his lawyer has made sure he has a water tight contract.

 

Different managers will accept different gigs with different remits, depends on their experience, their current stock plus (most importantly) how much wages they are being offered. 
 

Standard talk from a manager who is failing is to say board hasn’t backed him (Caldwell done this at Wigan and Chesterfield, and was possibly behind the “4 players story”)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, javeajag said:

from the Barnsley FC club website.....
 

With a capacity of 23,287 since the 'Taylor Report' in the early-1990's led to the development of all-seater stadia, Oakwell is often termed a 'classic' football stadium and one of the few remaining grounds to have its floodlights on corner pylons.

But it has t had a crown of more than 19000 for at least 7 years. the crowd at the Leeds game was higher than last time they played each other. The segregation explains for much of the difference between capacity and attendance. 
 

you brought this up  you were trying to dress it up as another example why the consortium were not fit for purpose  yet again , an examination of the facts provided different answers to what you represent to be the case.  Yet again  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

Different managers will accept different gigs with different remits, depends on their experience, their current stock plus (most importantly) how much wages they are being offered. 
 

Standard talk from a manager who is failing is to say board hasn’t backed him (Caldwell done this at Wigan and Chesterfield, and was possibly behind the “4 players story”)

If the consortium takeover takes place , they seem to like young inexperienced managers, think Daniel Stendel had only 1 years experience before he took the Barnsley job , think Ian McCall is too long in the tooth to put up with an Investment Company telling him what players he’s going to get etc etc .

Don’t think we’ll need to worry about it anyway . as it’s doubtful the supposed takeover will ever happen .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Dick Dastardly said:

I don't know if it was why, but he was outspoken about the owners recruitment policy, saying he needed some experience rather than just kids (I paraphrase). That probably doesn't help

They don’t even know if he was sacked ....they ‘separated’

The consensus seems to be that he was only involved in bringing 2 of the 14 summer signings in and that he was unhappy at the age profile of the squad mainly 21-24 and repeatedly told the owners they would struggle without some experienced players so they got fed and ‘separated’ him

most Barnsley fans unhappy talk of a demo at the Swansea game 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

Different managers will accept different gigs with different remits, depends on their experience, their current stock plus (most importantly) how much wages they are being offered. 
 

Standard talk from a manager who is failing is to say board hasn’t backed him (Caldwell done this at Wigan and Chesterfield, and was possibly behind the “4 players story”)

I don’t think that’s how Barnsley fans see it reading their forum ....he was very popular 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, jaf said:

But it has t had a crown of more than 19000 for at least 7 years. the crowd at the Leeds game was higher than last time they played each other. The segregation explains for much of the difference between capacity and attendance. 
 

you brought this up  you were trying to dress it up as another example why the consortium were not fit for purpose  yet again , an examination of the facts provided different answers to what you represent to be the case.  Yet again  

 

All I said was they had closed part of the stadium ....they have 

why not do this .....make a positive case for the consortium?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, javeajag said:

All I said was they had closed part of the stadium ....they have 

why not do this .....make a positive case for the consortium?

They closed part of the stadium for one game Leeds. Due to previous crowd trouble and access roads being closed due to road works.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

They closed part of the stadium for one game Leeds. Due to previous crowd trouble and access roads being closed due to road works.

 

Youve said that three times already ....let’s agree to disagree

now convince me the consortium will be good owners 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, javeajag said:

Youve said that three times already ....let’s agree to disagree

now convince me the consortium will be good owners 

 

Read the Barnsley site or Leeds site and they explain why.

Away stand had a buffer zone put in place 1000 each side, as did both stands meeting it. Away stand down from 6000 to 4000, home end down from 17000 to 15000

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

Read the Barnsley site or Leeds site and they explain why.

Away stand had a buffer zone put in place 1000 each side, as did both stands meeting it. Away stand down from 6000 to 4000, home end down from 17000 to 15000

Make the case for the consortium?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, javeajag said:

Youve said that three times already ....let’s agree to disagree

now convince me the consortium will be good owners 

 

I've lost count of the number of times you have said that.

Javea, this is all pointless. All one hundred and ninety seven pages, completely pointless. It matters not one iota what you or I think. You are obsessing. Take a break. Go for a walk, read a book, something, anything.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BowenBoys said:

I've lost count of the number of times you have said that.

Javea, this is all pointless. All one hundred and ninety seven pages, completely pointless. It matters not one iota what you or I think. You are obsessing. Take a break. Go for a walk, read a book, something, anything.

You are correct .....we will get what we will get sadly

so taking your advice .....starting the new inspector montalbano while listening to the new peter bruntnell vinyl 

have a great day !

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • admin locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...