| TOP STORIES |  | | | | | | | FEATURES | | | | | | MAYOR NEWS | | | | TRAVEL | | | | COMPETITIONS | | |
|
|
|
Robinson to miss play-offs
 |
| Theo Robinson |
Aidy Boothroyd will not be able to call upon the services of Theo Robinson against Hull City on Sunday.
Robinson returned from his season-long loan spell at Hereford last week and attended the club's Awards Evening on Monday.
With Darius Henderson suspended, fans were hoping Boothroyd would be able to include the homegrown striker, who has scored 14 goals for Hereford this season, in his squad for Sunday's play-off first leg encounter, but his loan agreement means he is unavailable.
"Theo can't play because of the nature of the loan agreement," said Boothroyd. "When you sign a player on loan it is until the end of May, so he is not eligible.
"I would love to have had him available. It would have been good to have him in and around the squad and add to the experience he's had at at Hereford, where he has done great."
With Steve Kabba struggling to recover from a dead leg, Tamas Priskin is expected to partner Nathan Ellington in attack.
10:40am Thursday 8th May 2008
Print 
Email this 
CommentPosted by: SIMMO, BUCKS on 1:03pm Thu 8 May 08
Just about caps the lot BOOTHROYD how incompetent to allow this situation it beggars belief OUR own player cannot play in the most important fixtures yet for our club . the total arrogance that we would get automatic promotion saw the demise of Mahon as he would not be good enough in premiership and now an inform STRIKER on our books cannot play JUST SCANDALOUS !!!!
Just about caps the lot BOOTHROYD how incompetent to allow this situation it beggars belief OUR own player cannot play in the most important fixtures yet for our club . the total arrogance that we would get automatic promotion saw the demise of Mahon as he would not be good enough in premiership and now an inform STRIKER on our books cannot play JUST SCANDALOUS !!!!
Posted by: Kurse, Chorleywood on 1:25pm Thu 8 May 08
[quote][bold]SIMMO[/bold] wrote:
Just about caps the lot BOOTHROYD how incompetent to allow this situation it beggars belief OUR own player cannot play in the most important fixtures yet for our club . the total arrogance that we would get automatic promotion saw the demise of Mahon as he would not be good enough in premiership and now an inform STRIKER on our books cannot play JUST SCANDALOUS !!!![/quote] Shut up mate. Like anyone thought at the beginning of the season that we would need Theo robinson to play in th play off, we had marlon, darius, tamas, Ellington, Kabba and Hoskins (6 strikers) and where destined for automatic remember!!! I'm almost embaressed to be a watford fan because of some of the unbelievably ignorant people on this website who don't know what they make comments about!!
SIMMO wrote:
Just about caps the lot BOOTHROYD how incompetent to allow this situation it beggars belief OUR own player cannot play in the most important fixtures yet for our club . the total arrogance that we would get automatic promotion saw the demise of Mahon as he would not be good enough in premiership and now an inform STRIKER on our books cannot play JUST SCANDALOUS !!!!
Shut up mate. Like anyone thought at the beginning of the season that we would need Theo robinson to play in th play off, we had marlon, darius, tamas, Ellington, Kabba and Hoskins (6 strikers) and where destined for automatic remember!!! I'm almost embaressed to be a watford fan because of some of the unbelievably ignorant people on this website who don't know what they make comments about!!
Posted by: James, Watford on 1:29pm Thu 8 May 08
How the hell can you blame Boothroyd for this??? It clearly states the agreement is until the end of May, which is therefore down to the Football League!!
How the hell can you blame Boothroyd for this??? It clearly states the agreement is until the end of May, which is therefore down to the Football League!!
Posted by: JohnBoy, Watford on 1:35pm Thu 8 May 08
the nature of the loan agreement? is this something the fa impose or something we negotiated?
the nature of the loan agreement? is this something the fa impose or something we negotiated?
Posted by: James, Watford on 2:12pm Thu 8 May 08
Surely if a player is on loan for the whole season it would be until the end of May because Hereford could have been in the play-offs themselves.
Surely if a player is on loan for the whole season it would be until the end of May because Hereford could have been in the play-offs themselves.
Posted by: Professor Plum, The Billiard Room on 2:20pm Thu 8 May 08
Give Hoofers a break! He doesn't make the loan rules. More depressingly, the loan situation means Hull will still have the loannee from Man U who tormented us last month (can't remember his name - senility setting in!)
Give Hoofers a break! He doesn't make the loan rules. More depressingly, the loan situation means Hull will still have the loannee from Man U who tormented us last month (can't remember his name - senility setting in!)
Posted by: Mark, Watford on 2:37pm Thu 8 May 08
[quote][bold]James[/bold] wrote:
How the hell can you blame Boothroyd for this??? It clearly states the agreement is until the end of May, which is therefore down to the Football League!![/quote] Some people just like to blame him for anything..
Should we not be pleased Aidy was considering him!?
James wrote:
How the hell can you blame Boothroyd for this??? It clearly states the agreement is until the end of May, which is therefore down to the Football League!!
Some people just like to blame him for anything..
Should we not be pleased Aidy was considering him!?
Posted by: VoR, watford on 2:39pm Thu 8 May 08
Frazer Campbell Prof??
Hull had 3 strikers on the pitch against Ipswich and didn't score the other day.
I really don't care... I think they'll under estimate us, my only concern is Wayne Brown getting 1 over on us, like most ex players do.
So pleased we're at home 1st leg, we'll then know what to do for the second.
Against Palace Last time, we knew what to do at home and that was less than convincing, infact jolly boring!!
After Sunday we'll be on our way!!!
Frazer Campbell Prof??
Hull had 3 strikers on the pitch against Ipswich and didn't score the other day.
I really don't care... I think they'll under estimate us, my only concern is Wayne Brown getting 1 over on us, like most ex players do.
So pleased we're at home 1st leg, we'll then know what to do for the second.
Against Palace Last time, we knew what to do at home and that was less than convincing, infact jolly boring!!
After Sunday we'll be on our way!!!
Posted by: JohnBoy, Watford on 2:41pm Thu 8 May 08
According to the FA [bold]The conditions governing the loan of a non-amateur player (duration of the loan, obligations to which the loan is subject) shall be regulated by concluding a separate written contract between the two clubs and the player concerned[/bold]
It appears that we should have been in control of the term of the loan. How can people say it wasn't our fault that he is not available to us. We could have written into this contract that we have to right to recall him if we need him.
According to the FA
The conditions governing the loan of a non-amateur player (duration of the loan, obligations to which the loan is subject) shall be regulated by concluding a separate written contract between the two clubs and the player concerned
It appears that we should have been in control of the term of the loan. How can people say it wasn't our fault that he is not available to us. We could have written into this contract that we have to right to recall him if we need him.
Posted by: Mark, Watford on 2:45pm Thu 8 May 08
Its sad that we have to rely on somebody so young and experience!
Just shows what lack of options we have up front...
Its sad that we have to rely on somebody so young and experience!
Just shows what lack of options we have up front...
Posted by: Mark, Watford on 2:49pm Thu 8 May 08
[quote][bold]JohnBoy[/bold] wrote:
According to the FA [bold]The conditions governing the loan of a non-amateur player (duration of the loan, obligations to which the loan is subject) shall be regulated by concluding a separate written contract between the two clubs and the player concerned[/bold] It appears that we should have been in control of the term of the loan. How can people say it wasn't our fault that he is not available to us. We could have written into this contract that we have to right to recall him if we need him.[/quote] Well do you think when the season started we thou8ght that we would have 3 strikers (including King being sold) out of a play-off and being only left with 2..both of whom are out of form?
JohnBoy wrote:
According to the FA The conditions governing the loan of a non-amateur player (duration of the loan, obligations to which the loan is subject) shall be regulated by concluding a separate written contract between the two clubs and the player concerned It appears that we should have been in control of the term of the loan. How can people say it wasn't our fault that he is not available to us. We could have written into this contract that we have to right to recall him if we need him.
Well do you think when the season started we thou8ght that we would have 3 strikers (including King being sold) out of a play-off and being only left with 2..both of whom are out of form?
Posted by: Scotshorn, Aberdeen on 2:50pm Thu 8 May 08
Another poorly worded KA story. Rather than "fans were hoping......", he should have said "some fans were hoping.....". There haven't been too many calling for his inclusion - apart from a few who lurk in the shadows of this website, spitting dummies right, left and centre.
In spite of what is implied here, I doubt very much that AB would have considered playing Theo anyway - and quite right too. 14 goals in League 2 doesn't necessarily equate to being able to produce the goods in a Championship play-off, effectively only a week after 'joining' the club. Like it or not, I think we have more chance with the TP/NE combination.
Another poorly worded KA story. Rather than "fans were hoping......", he should have said "some fans were hoping.....". There haven't been too many calling for his inclusion - apart from a few who lurk in the shadows of this website, spitting dummies right, left and centre.
In spite of what is implied here, I doubt very much that AB would have considered playing Theo anyway - and quite right too. 14 goals in League 2 doesn't necessarily equate to being able to produce the goods in a Championship play-off, effectively only a week after 'joining' the club. Like it or not, I think we have more chance with the TP/NE combination.
Posted by: Martin, Glos on 3:43pm Thu 8 May 08
I would imagine that part of the Ainsworth deal stipulated that Theo would be there for the season with no right to recall.
I am astonished that people are moaning on about this, it was all made clear at the time of the deal for signing LA.
Yes, Aidy has made mistakes this season but this is certainly not one of them - get over it.
I would imagine that part of the Ainsworth deal stipulated that Theo would be there for the season with no right to recall.
I am astonished that people are moaning on about this, it was all made clear at the time of the deal for signing LA.
Yes, Aidy has made mistakes this season but this is certainly not one of them - get over it.
Posted by: Vicar Rage on 3:56pm Thu 8 May 08
Scotshorn - so the whole story is poorly worded because KA didn't use the word 'some'.
Good God - you are among those who attack other posters for taking every opportunity to criticise the club/manager, and yet you employ the self-same tactics to have a dig at the WO and its staff.
Secondly, the manager is quoted directly as saying "I would love to have had him available."
Exactly how is that an implication of anything? It's a flipping statement.
I'm not advocating having him in the team at all myself. But if I were a Hull defender I wouldn't be having too many sleepless nights at the prospect of facing up to 'Goal Machine' Ellington and 'Net Buster' Priskin.
Scotshorn - so the whole story is poorly worded because KA didn't use the word 'some'.
Good God - you are among those who attack other posters for taking every opportunity to criticise the club/manager, and yet you employ the self-same tactics to have a dig at the WO and its staff.
Secondly, the manager is quoted directly as saying "I would love to have had him available."
Exactly how is that an implication of anything? It's a flipping statement.
I'm not advocating having him in the team at all myself. But if I were a Hull defender I wouldn't be having too many sleepless nights at the prospect of facing up to 'Goal Machine' Ellington and 'Net Buster' Priskin.
Posted by: Simon, London on 4:40pm Thu 8 May 08
Re: the loan situaton, I stand to be corrected but the football league rules allow players to go on season long or half season long loan deals that stretch from transfer window to transfer window, I believe with no recall.
The shorter loans you hear about are the emergency loans. These have a minimum period of 28 days and a maximum period of 93 days (ie not long enough to keep Robinson at hereford all season without missing a chunk).
I understand the football league requires season long and half season long loans to last until the end of May with no right of recall.
That's why Robinson's unavailable.
In any event, much as he'd be quite useful on the bench for the play-offs, what would your reaction be if we'd signed Ben Wright of Lincoln on loan on deadline day in March?
For the record, Wright's managed one more goal than Robinson in a significantly worse team.
Re: the loan situaton, I stand to be corrected but the football league rules allow players to go on season long or half season long loan deals that stretch from transfer window to transfer window, I believe with no recall.
The shorter loans you hear about are the emergency loans. These have a minimum period of 28 days and a maximum period of 93 days (ie not long enough to keep Robinson at hereford all season without missing a chunk).
I understand the football league requires season long and half season long loans to last until the end of May with no right of recall.
That's why Robinson's unavailable.
In any event, much as he'd be quite useful on the bench for the play-offs, what would your reaction be if we'd signed Ben Wright of Lincoln on loan on deadline day in March?
For the record, Wright's managed one more goal than Robinson in a significantly worse team.
Posted by: James, Kings Langley on 4:46pm Thu 8 May 08
Another non-story. Is it really a disaster that a man who has made one substitute appearance in two seasons for the Hornets is unavailable? No, not really.
Another non-story. Is it really a disaster that a man who has made one substitute appearance in two seasons for the Hornets is unavailable? No, not really.
Posted by: Vicar Rage on 4:49pm Thu 8 May 08
I cannot understand why this is a non-story James.
The manager says himself he'd have liked to have the player unavailable.
Surely a non-story would be if Boothroyd had said 'I can't pick him but it's not a problem as there is no way he would have featured in my plans'.
The manager has seen fit to make a series of comments about the player.
Are you suggesting the WO should ignore that fact?
I don't see any suggestion in anything the WO has added that raises the situation to a "disaster".
I cannot understand why this is a non-story James.
The manager says himself he'd have liked to have the player unavailable.
Surely a non-story would be if Boothroyd had said 'I can't pick him but it's not a problem as there is no way he would have featured in my plans'.
The manager has seen fit to make a series of comments about the player.
Are you suggesting the WO should ignore that fact?
I don't see any suggestion in anything the WO has added that raises the situation to a "disaster".
Posted by: James, Kings Langley on 4:58pm Thu 8 May 08
It’s a complete irrelevance ‘Vicar Rage’. I damaged my knee skiing a few weeks ago and I can’t turn out for the hornets on Sunday either.
It’s a real shame as I’d been banging the goals in for my five-a-side team.
It’s a complete irrelevance ‘Vicar Rage’. I damaged my knee skiing a few weeks ago and I can’t turn out for the hornets on Sunday either.
It’s a real shame as I’d been banging the goals in for my five-a-side team.
Posted by: Vicar Rage on 5:04pm Thu 8 May 08
James - I didn't realise you were signed on for Watford. Sorry, missed that fact.
And AB must have forgotten to use part of his press conference to comment on the fact as well. Very remiss, he is normally very attentive to detail.
I apologise for my flippance, but when someone describes the manager directly saying he "would love to have him available" about a professional signed to his club as an "irrelevance", I just can't take it seriously.
James - I didn't realise you were signed on for Watford. Sorry, missed that fact.
And AB must have forgotten to use part of his press conference to comment on the fact as well. Very remiss, he is normally very attentive to detail.
I apologise for my flippance, but when someone describes the manager directly saying he "would love to have him available" about a professional signed to his club as an "irrelevance", I just can't take it seriously.
Posted by: Simon, London on 5:28pm Thu 8 May 08
It's newsworthy purely because a fair few fans have been asking if Robinson's available as an option so whoever put the question to Boothroyd was finding out the answer.
As for Boothroyd's quote, having been asked if he'd like another forward avaiable when we've got one suspended, one potentially injured and none of them scoring then I'm sure he would love the extra option to be available.
The reporting seems fair enough to me. It's some of the reaction (ie Boothroyd's been negligent etc... etc...) seems rather over the top but, then, some of the reaction has been over the top all season.
It's newsworthy purely because a fair few fans have been asking if Robinson's available as an option so whoever put the question to Boothroyd was finding out the answer.
As for Boothroyd's quote, having been asked if he'd like another forward avaiable when we've got one suspended, one potentially injured and none of them scoring then I'm sure he would love the extra option to be available.
The reporting seems fair enough to me. It's some of the reaction (ie Boothroyd's been negligent etc... etc...) seems rather over the top but, then, some of the reaction has been over the top all season.
Posted by: Scotshorn, Aberdeen on 5:30pm Thu 8 May 08
[quote][bold]Vicar Rage[/bold] wrote:
Scotshorn - so the whole story is poorly worded because KA didn't use the word 'some'. Good God - you are among those who attack other posters for taking every opportunity to criticise the club/manager, and yet you employ the self-same tactics to have a dig at the WO and its staff. Secondly, the manager is quoted directly as saying "I would love to have had him available." Exactly how is that an implication of anything? It's a flipping statement. I'm not advocating having him in the team at all myself. But if I were a Hull defender I wouldn't be having too many sleepless nights at the prospect of facing up to 'Goal Machine' Ellington and 'Net Buster' Priskin.[/quote] Vicar Rage - have another look and another read. You have left half of AB's statement out in your retort - the rest of it certainly only says that he would have been in and around the squad. There is only an implication that he could been in the team.
You're probably right about the Hull defenders, but we can only hope that they think we will be retaining the Saracens approach - up and under. I like to think that, if NE & TP do play, we will forced to change and play to their strengths.
Vicar Rage wrote:
Scotshorn - so the whole story is poorly worded because KA didn't use the word 'some'. Good God - you are among those who attack other posters for taking every opportunity to criticise the club/manager, and yet you employ the self-same tactics to have a dig at the WO and its staff. Secondly, the manager is quoted directly as saying "I would love to have had him available." Exactly how is that an implication of anything? It's a flipping statement. I'm not advocating having him in the team at all myself. But if I were a Hull defender I wouldn't be having too many sleepless nights at the prospect of facing up to 'Goal Machine' Ellington and 'Net Buster' Priskin.
Vicar Rage - have another look and another read. You have left half of AB's statement out in your retort - the rest of it certainly only says that he would have been in and around the squad. There is only an implication that he could been in the team.
You're probably right about the Hull defenders, but we can only hope that they think we will be retaining the Saracens approach - up and under. I like to think that, if NE & TP do play, we will forced to change and play to their strengths.
Posted by: oxheypaul, watford on 5:31pm Thu 8 May 08
Strikes me that Vicar Rage might sit at a desk not too far away from that hapless merchant of doom Affleck.
4-3-3 Sunday...with McAnuff, Smith and Ellington to run Hull's lumbering dinosaurs ragged. You know it makes sense.
Strikes me that Vicar Rage might sit at a desk not too far away from that hapless merchant of doom Affleck.
4-3-3 Sunday...with McAnuff, Smith and Ellington to run Hull's lumbering dinosaurs ragged. You know it makes sense.
Posted by: VoR, watford on 5:36pm Thu 8 May 08
Perfectly put Simon...
So, say he was available and played....scored the goals to win the tie then went on to be the hero of the play off final.....would he then be thrown in ahead of everyone else in the premiership? No, he's not ready, realistically if we remain in this division for next year I think he'll do a job, a great talent but that's all that he is, one for the future, now is the time for the million dollar man to finally step up to the plate...Although I somehow doubt it!!!
Perfectly put Simon...
So, say he was available and played....scored the goals to win the tie then went on to be the hero of the play off final.....would he then be thrown in ahead of everyone else in the premiership? No, he's not ready, realistically if we remain in this division for next year I think he'll do a job, a great talent but that's all that he is, one for the future, now is the time for the million dollar man to finally step up to the plate...Although I somehow doubt it!!!
Posted by: jonty, Watford on 5:37pm Thu 8 May 08
PLEASE PLEASE give Liam Henderson a chance can't be any worse than TP & NE.We need goals on sunday and these 2 will NOT deliver.
PLEASE PLEASE give Liam Henderson a chance can't be any worse than TP & NE.We need goals on sunday and these 2 will NOT deliver.
Posted by: Mark, Watford on 8:56pm Thu 8 May 08
He is quite quick and tall...so really would be perfect to replace D.Henderson in Aidy's eyes for a bit of hoofball..
Actually scored some very good goals from outside the area in recent Youth/Reserve matches so got an eye for goal.
He is quite quick and tall...so really would be perfect to replace D.Henderson in Aidy's eyes for a bit of hoofball..
Actually scored some very good goals from outside the area in recent Youth/Reserve matches so got an eye for goal.
Posted by: Vicar Rage on 10:58pm Thu 8 May 08
Oxheypaul - Assuming that the WO offices are still in Watford (I believe the offices I once knew are now houses?), then using Google maps, my desk is about 26 miles away from his (give or take the odd long corridor).
Why did you want to know that?
Oh . . . wait. I get it.
You think because I happen to agree with the Watford Observer I must work for them.
Crikey, with such clear paranoia, I'd be tempted to suggest your desk would be close enough to Boothroyd or Simpson for you to have become almost as obsessed with any hint of criticism as they are.
Oxheypaul - Assuming that the WO offices are still in Watford (I believe the offices I once knew are now houses?), then using Google maps, my desk is about 26 miles away from his (give or take the odd long corridor).
Why did you want to know that?
Oh . . . wait. I get it.
You think because I happen to agree with the Watford Observer I must work for them.
Crikey, with such clear paranoia, I'd be tempted to suggest your desk would be close enough to Boothroyd or Simpson for you to have become almost as obsessed with any hint of criticism as they are.
Posted by: JohnBoy, Watford on 7:46am Fri 9 May 08
Frankly I am amazed at the blind loyalty shown for Simpson & Co. The WO suffer some unwarranted criticism because they do their job and present a view on the club that sometimes the executive don't like.
Please don't be a sheep and use your own opinion.
Frankly I am amazed at the blind loyalty shown for Simpson & Co. The WO suffer some unwarranted criticism because they do their job and present a view on the club that sometimes the executive don't like.
Please don't be a sheep and use your own opinion.
Posted by: Metal Mickey, Iver Bucks on 8:50am Fri 9 May 08
[quote][bold]Steady Eddy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]JohnBoy[/bold] wrote: Frankly I am amazed at the blind loyalty shown for Simpson & Co. The WO suffer some unwarranted criticism because they do their job and present a view on the club that sometimes the executive don't like. Please don't be a sheep and use your own opinion.[/quote] Well if you risked most of your hard earned to bail the club out and then clearly presided over progress both on and off the field ,would you not expect appreciation? I see no "blind loyalty" but indeed fairly savage criticism. who are the sheep is a moot point surely? I do not feel that the WO is reasonable or balanced at all. That is my opinion. I find you patronising.[/quote] Well said steady eddy, all GS did was put his hard earned wealth into the club he loved saving it for those of us that would probably do the same but couldnt. He deserves a pat on the back not a knife in it. I for one say thnks mate for saving my club...and those that disagree, i say to you ..Rotherham, Bourenmouth, Leeds, Luton and many more to follow
Steady Eddy wrote:
JohnBoy wrote: Frankly I am amazed at the blind loyalty shown for Simpson & Co. The WO suffer some unwarranted criticism because they do their job and present a view on the club that sometimes the executive don't like. Please don't be a sheep and use your own opinion.
Well if you risked most of your hard earned to bail the club out and then clearly presided over progress both on and off the field ,would you not expect appreciation? I see no "blind loyalty" but indeed fairly savage criticism. who are the sheep is a moot point surely? I do not feel that the WO is reasonable or balanced at all. That is my opinion. I find you patronising.
Well said steady eddy, all GS did was put his hard earned wealth into the club he loved saving it for those of us that would probably do the same but couldnt. He deserves a pat on the back not a knife in it. I for one say thnks mate for saving my club...and those that disagree, i say to you ..Rotherham, Bourenmouth, Leeds, Luton and many more to follow
Posted by: JohnBoy, Watford on 10:44am Fri 9 May 08
Come on, live in the real world. Do you seriously think a newspaper is going to give some appreciation.
They have to report on what they believe to be true, it is up to the reader top decide if they believe it is fair. To deny them that decision is even more patronising.
Come on, live in the real world. Do you seriously think a newspaper is going to give some appreciation.
They have to report on what they believe to be true, it is up to the reader top decide if they believe it is fair. To deny them that decision is even more patronising.
Posted by: Vicar Rage on 11:08am Fri 9 May 08
Steady Eddy - you think the WO is wrong, I think they're doing a good job. We're miles apart but that happens.
What I can't discount so readily is your assertion that we have made progress on and off the field.
If we go up this season, I'll agree with you.
If we don't, then we will be a club that is playing mid-table Championship football, with very few saleable assets, the likelihood of having to reduce the squad, and apparently not a huge amount of money in the bank.
Despite all the highs we experienced earlier in the GS/AB reign, I think we have almost come full circle.
And, in there is a takeover, the chairman will (at the reported offer price) end the whole experience very much in the black.
He may have put his money in at the start, but very few people in football get to withdraw it with interest a few years later.
I don't particularly feel that deserves my appreciation.
Steady Eddy - you think the WO is wrong, I think they're doing a good job. We're miles apart but that happens.
What I can't discount so readily is your assertion that we have made progress on and off the field.
If we go up this season, I'll agree with you.
If we don't, then we will be a club that is playing mid-table Championship football, with very few saleable assets, the likelihood of having to reduce the squad, and apparently not a huge amount of money in the bank.
Despite all the highs we experienced earlier in the GS/AB reign, I think we have almost come full circle.
And, in there is a takeover, the chairman will (at the reported offer price) end the whole experience very much in the black.
He may have put his money in at the start, but very few people in football get to withdraw it with interest a few years later.
I don't particularly feel that deserves my appreciation.
Posted by: James, Kings Langley on 12:06pm Fri 9 May 08
Rather a harsh interpretation there Vicar Age. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Simpson pumped his money in blind without realistically expecting to emerge from the situation with a profit. You might at least have to good grace to concede that Simpson could probably have expected to lose his cash when he put it in a few years ago.
Rather a harsh interpretation there Vicar Age. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Simpson pumped his money in blind without realistically expecting to emerge from the situation with a profit. You might at least have to good grace to concede that Simpson could probably have expected to lose his cash when he put it in a few years ago.
Posted by: Vicar Rage on 12:42pm Fri 9 May 08
James - read the penultimate paragraph: "very few people in football get to withdraw it with interest".
It's quite clear I am saying the best anyone usually hopes for when they invest in football is not to lose.
He may not have expected a profit. He quite possibly didn't. But we keep hearing this line about how he threw all his money into the club to save it.
Well, now he tells us it is safe - what he doesn't tell us is what percentage he's had back: 50%, 100%, 125%??
Who knows - we probably never will, and you could say he has a right to that privacy. But if we're going to be continually told he put all his money in, then it's not quite the whole story if we can't qualify that by adding 'and he got some back/all back/more than all back'.
Fair play to anyone who takes that risk, and we owe him for being bold enough to do so.
But as I said in my previous post, my appreciation for that diminishes as it appears that he's actually going to make a return on it.
Jack Petchey was roundly despised for the way he ran the club, but what you can't level at him was that he wasn't upfront about looking to get more out than he put in.
James - read the penultimate paragraph: "very few people in football get to withdraw it with interest".
It's quite clear I am saying the best anyone usually hopes for when they invest in football is not to lose.
He may not have expected a profit. He quite possibly didn't. But we keep hearing this line about how he threw all his money into the club to save it.
Well, now he tells us it is safe - what he doesn't tell us is what percentage he's had back: 50%, 100%, 125%??
Who knows - we probably never will, and you could say he has a right to that privacy. But if we're going to be continually told he put all his money in, then it's not quite the whole story if we can't qualify that by adding 'and he got some back/all back/more than all back'.
Fair play to anyone who takes that risk, and we owe him for being bold enough to do so.
But as I said in my previous post, my appreciation for that diminishes as it appears that he's actually going to make a return on it.
Jack Petchey was roundly despised for the way he ran the club, but what you can't level at him was that he wasn't upfront about looking to get more out than he put in.
Posted by: Vicar Rage on 2:42pm Fri 9 May 08
Steady Eddy - steady on, you sounded very much like Sage/Hapless Hornet/Drinker etc!!
If you're going to correct me, do get it right: I wrote we would be playing mid-table football. And that is exactly what we have been playing for the last five months. Our results in that period would have had us in mid-table, and the style is probably less than mid-table, but that is obviously open to debate.
You quite rightly say we have very different tastes when it comes to what the WO write. There is no right or wrong - it's like people who prefer red to white, or lager to bitter.
And contrary to your statement, I am happy to concede that the chairman has done good things for the club. As has the manager.
But I believe much of that good is in the past - certainly long enough ago that you can't use it to continually defend what is going on now.
I acknowledged the risk he took in a previous post, and I will continue to do so. It was a brave step, and one that surely only a fan could take.
But I stress again, we cannot keep looking back to the past to defend the current or the future.
Would you wager your house on us being financially secure? Really? If we don't go up, I think then we will see the financial position exposed.
Of course we may go up, we may be taken over - or both might happen.
And if they do, my point is that the chairman will have recouped his expenditure and quite possibly bettered it; if he continues to remain in the position, I feel people who defend his decisions going forward because of the risk he took in the past cannot justifiably do so.
Steady Eddy - steady on, you sounded very much like Sage/Hapless Hornet/Drinker etc!!
If you're going to correct me, do get it right: I wrote we would be playing mid-table football. And that is exactly what we have been playing for the last five months. Our results in that period would have had us in mid-table, and the style is probably less than mid-table, but that is obviously open to debate.
You quite rightly say we have very different tastes when it comes to what the WO write. There is no right or wrong - it's like people who prefer red to white, or lager to bitter.
And contrary to your statement, I am happy to concede that the chairman has done good things for the club. As has the manager.
But I believe much of that good is in the past - certainly long enough ago that you can't use it to continually defend what is going on now.
I acknowledged the risk he took in a previous post, and I will continue to do so. It was a brave step, and one that surely only a fan could take.
But I stress again, we cannot keep looking back to the past to defend the current or the future.
Would you wager your house on us being financially secure? Really? If we don't go up, I think then we will see the financial position exposed.
Of course we may go up, we may be taken over - or both might happen.
And if they do, my point is that the chairman will have recouped his expenditure and quite possibly bettered it; if he continues to remain in the position, I feel people who defend his decisions going forward because of the risk he took in the past cannot justifiably do so.
Posted by: James, Kings Langley on 3:08pm Fri 9 May 08
Thanks Vicar Rage, was just about following your convoluted, caveat-laden post until I reached the last paragraph. Pub at lunchtime was it?
So, long story short, would I be correct in believing that your concern with Simpson is that he is taking too much money out of the club?
Thanks Vicar Rage, was just about following your convoluted, caveat-laden post until I reached the last paragraph. Pub at lunchtime was it?
So, long story short, would I be correct in believing that your concern with Simpson is that he is taking too much money out of the club?
Posted by: Vicar Rage on 3:38pm Fri 9 May 08
Why did the last paragraph make no sense James? Petchey was disliked (certainly I was no fan at all), but he made no secret of the fact he was looking to make money.
I have not said I have a problem with the current chairman making money either. He put his money, he gets his money out.
Good luck to the man - as many have said, it was his risk.
What I can't accept is people using the fact he put his money in to defend things he says and does years later.
We constantly get the line 'he put all his money into the club'. What I am saying is there is a second half to that which is 'and he took it all back out again'. He might even be in profit.
But he's certainly quits. So let's start judging what he is doing right now, rather than harking back years.
It's no different to those fans who defend AB now because he won the Play-Off Final.
The past, however glorious, is the past.
And no, I didn't go the pub at lunchtime. And thanks for the other semi-insults about caveats etc.
It's such a shame we can't have contrary opinions without someone feeling the need to chuck a few cheap jibes around.
Why did the last paragraph make no sense James? Petchey was disliked (certainly I was no fan at all), but he made no secret of the fact he was looking to make money.
I have not said I have a problem with the current chairman making money either. He put his money, he gets his money out.
Good luck to the man - as many have said, it was his risk.
What I can't accept is people using the fact he put his money in to defend things he says and does years later.
We constantly get the line 'he put all his money into the club'. What I am saying is there is a second half to that which is 'and he took it all back out again'. He might even be in profit.
But he's certainly quits. So let's start judging what he is doing right now, rather than harking back years.
It's no different to those fans who defend AB now because he won the Play-Off Final.
The past, however glorious, is the past.
And no, I didn't go the pub at lunchtime. And thanks for the other semi-insults about caveats etc.
It's such a shame we can't have contrary opinions without someone feeling the need to chuck a few cheap jibes around.
Posted by: Administrator, Watford on 3:43pm Fri 9 May 08
Steady Eddy your contributions have been deleted because you have posted using a multitude of names during the past fortnight, having said to us you would use just one. Why don’t you make up your mind who you want to be and don’t waste our time and yours.
Steady Eddy your contributions have been deleted because you have posted using a multitude of names during the past fortnight, having said to us you would use just one. Why don’t you make up your mind who you want to be and don’t waste our time and yours.
Posted by: James, Kings Langley on 4:13pm Fri 9 May 08
Vicar Rage, I'd forgotten what a sensitive soul you can be when it suits you.
The post that was convoluted and caveat-laden was your 2:42 one. And that last paragraph... wish I'd had a pint myself at lunchtime - it would have helped me pick my way through it.
I'm still not clear what your problem with Simpson is. I’m a simple soul, can you spell it out for me?
Thanks in anticipation.
Vicar Rage, I'd forgotten what a sensitive soul you can be when it suits you.
The post that was convoluted and caveat-laden was your 2:42 one. And that last paragraph... wish I'd had a pint myself at lunchtime - it would have helped me pick my way through it.
I'm still not clear what your problem with Simpson is. I’m a simple soul, can you spell it out for me?
Thanks in anticipation.
Posted by: Vicar Rage on 4:25pm Fri 9 May 08
Hi James
Sensitive? No? Sad that we can't have a debate without some silly name-calling and sarcasm? Yes.
Anyway, here goes:
Much of the decision making at the club right now should be open to criticism/question.
However, far too often anyone who does is accused of betrayal because 'the chairman put his money in to save the club'.
My point is this, he's had his money back and the past has to be the past.
Can we start judging the club (chairman and manager) on what they are doing now, rather than continually using events in the past to counter any argument?
There you go - all on nothing stronger than a cuppa.
Hi James
Sensitive? No? Sad that we can't have a debate without some silly name-calling and sarcasm? Yes.
Anyway, here goes:
Much of the decision making at the club right now should be open to criticism/question.
However, far too often anyone who does is accused of betrayal because 'the chairman put his money in to save the club'.
My point is this, he's had his money back and the past has to be the past.
Can we start judging the club (chairman and manager) on what they are doing now, rather than continually using events in the past to counter any argument?
There you go - all on nothing stronger than a cuppa.
Posted by: James, Kings Langley on 5:30pm Fri 9 May 08
Vicar Rage, I'd never considered describing someone as 'sensitive' to be name-calling but I suppose that to someone of a delicate disposition it might be considered as such (apologies if that too is considered 'name calling'). In the past I’ve read you describe individuals at the club as being ‘overly sensitive’ but I assume that’s ok? Hypocritical? Not for me to say.
And sarcasm? You lost me there.
Anyway, glad we've clarified your position on the chairman. Basically, ignore the past and judge him on the present? Good. Now let’s move on.
Vicar Rage, I'd never considered describing someone as 'sensitive' to be name-calling but I suppose that to someone of a delicate disposition it might be considered as such (apologies if that too is considered 'name calling'). In the past I’ve read you describe individuals at the club as being ‘overly sensitive’ but I assume that’s ok? Hypocritical? Not for me to say.
And sarcasm? You lost me there.
Anyway, glad we've clarified your position on the chairman. Basically, ignore the past and judge him on the present? Good. Now let’s move on.
Posted by: Vicar Rage on 5:54pm Fri 9 May 08
James - quite clearly I'll never be in the same position to judge as you so obviously are.
I can only aspire to reach the heights of your ivory tower.
And what a memory you have too! It must be crammed full of all those instances where you were able to correct humble plebs like me, putting our worlds to right with your esteemed knowledge, then marching on to your next conquest with a marvellous sense of self-satisfaction.
I'm humbled, nay honoured, you have the time to bother with me really - but I will treasure your most recent dressing down, which was a bit like a written version of having your headmaster straighten your tie.
However, despite the fact I shall forever be in the shadow of your obvious greatness, just one itty bitty thing:
I'll talk about what I want to, when I want to, at as much length as I want to, and I'll move on when I'm flipping well ready.
That okay with you, oh wise one?
James - quite clearly I'll never be in the same position to judge as you so obviously are.
I can only aspire to reach the heights of your ivory tower.
And what a memory you have too! It must be crammed full of all those instances where you were able to correct humble plebs like me, putting our worlds to right with your esteemed knowledge, then marching on to your next conquest with a marvellous sense of self-satisfaction.
I'm humbled, nay honoured, you have the time to bother with me really - but I will treasure your most recent dressing down, which was a bit like a written version of having your headmaster straighten your tie.
However, despite the fact I shall forever be in the shadow of your obvious greatness, just one itty bitty thing:
I'll talk about what I want to, when I want to, at as much length as I want to, and I'll move on when I'm flipping well ready.
That okay with you, oh wise one?
Posted by: James, Kings Langley on 10:38am Wed 14 May 08
Finally you discover your place on the food-chain 'Vicar Rage'!
Finally you discover your place on the food-chain 'Vicar Rage'!
What are these links for?
If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.
At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.
Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.
More on Digg
More on del.icio.us
More on Furl
More on reddit
More on NowPublic/
More on Yahoo!
