Monkey Tennis Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 Indeed. Link Mmmm. "Sort of" is about right, but fair enough. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigRubberFist Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 Mmmm. "Sort of" is about right, but fair enough. Yeah - he does and he doesn't. Kinda. I suppose that's as good as it's going to get and it's up to individuals to make up their own minds on whether this is good enough. I'm still undecided. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeredbook Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 On the subject of Young .Have they sorted the "toilets " at the portman road end ? ,or maybe it isn't a priority to have fans not pissin in a hovel . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie S Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 Well, the big man has apologised, sort of, and I accept his apology. That's not an apology. That's "We got it right and we're just sorry that many of the fans called it wrong and disagreed with us." In the context of the recent contentious assertion that the "silent majority" sided with the board's view (attempted marginalisation of the "vocal minority") it's indicative of the fact that the board are not just out of touch with the feelings of many of the fans, they are stubbornly and unapologetically so. Not good enough IMO. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Flash Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 Yeah - he does and he doesn't. Kinda. I suppose that's as good as it's going to get and it's up to individuals to make up their own minds on whether this is good enough. I'm still undecided. It is like one of those apologies for the inconvenience caused that you get from Scotrail. However, probably time to move on. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliche Guevara Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 That's not an apology. That's "We got it right and we're just sorry that many of the fans called it wrong and disagreed with us." In the context of the recent contentious assertion that the "silent majority" sided with the board's view (attempted marginalisation of the "vocal minority") it's indicative of the fact that the board are not just out of touch with the feelings of many of the fans, they are stubbornly and unapologetically so. Not good enough IMO. It's a Tony Blair type apology i.e not an apology 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RossQOS Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 (edited) Frustrated that we've signed Young when Hopkirk said himself he wanted to sign and looks a better player to me. Delighted with the signing of Lyle, though some people don't want him. However i think he's a good player despite his past. Edited August 3, 2012 by RossQOS 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 His records not exactly great, 1 in 18 for the champions of this league and only 29 in 130 for us so far. Sandy won’t see him as a threat to Nicky then and he should fit in nicely so they become a dynamic double up front!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MB Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 On the subject of Young .Have they sorted the "toilets " at the portman road end ? ,or maybe it isn't a priority to have fans not pissin in a hovel . This is one of the strangest posts I've read on here. What has Derek Young got to do with the state of the toilets at the Portland Drive end? Perhaps, he is infamous for relieving himself during matches and expects salubrious surroundings? If so, he'll be disappointed. The toilets are a health hazard. On the 'apology', I just want to move on now. It's clearly not an apology per se; I even wrote an angry reply last night then just deleted it because I've simply had enough of this whole sorry episode. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 Sandy won’t see him as a threat to Nicky then and he should fit in nicely so they become a dynamic double up front!! Why are you obsessed with the Clarks? And last time I checked, Allan Johnston was the manager 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawk Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 Ok, he scored, fair enough, still think Reilly is better. If he's in on merit, I can accept, if he's in because his father is assistant manager, then sorry, I can't. Maybe this is what he's getting at! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 Maybe this is what he's getting at! Does anyone seriously think this, though? I find it utterly ridiculous to suggest that the manager would pick a player simply because his father is the assistant 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katboy Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 I find the assertion that Clark is playing simply beacuse his dad is the assistant manager ridiculous. I think that Clark is in the team at present on merit. If his dad's presence at the club inspires him to kick on and improve on what was an unproductive season then great. I am a believer that players play themself into a team & play themself back out. On the subject of the "yes" vote, I like some others am sick of the whole thing. It is time to put the whole mess to bed & get behind the team. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawk Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 (edited) Does anyone seriously think this, though? I find it utterly ridiculous to suggest that the manager would pick a player simply because his father is the assistant Having watch Nicky all last season and noting his goals return, do you seriously think he merits a start as a striker? Dumbarton was another example and I can see exactly why Peterhead released him. I was surprised at last weekend's substitution as were a few others judging by the shouts from the crowd. I'm sure it makes for some awkward discussions. Edited August 3, 2012 by Hawk 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorr-oh! Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 Does anyone seriously think this, though? I find it utterly ridiculous to suggest that the manager would pick a player simply because his father is the assistant I am beginning to dispair, it seems that the manager signs the wrong players and picks the team based on who is related to who. The committee dont know what they are doing because they dont do what some fans want. You are spot on to say that it is ridiculous that the manager picks the team according to his assistant. Young Clark is 21 years old and I am sure will read Pie and Bovril, how on earth do supporters think that continually slagging the ability of a young boy will help the team in any way. Lets all get behind the players and trust the managers judgement and look forward to a successfull season. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirkyblue2 Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 Seems I've been dragged in on the Clark discussion. I've nothing against the boy and if he's in on merit there's no problem but to suggest that politics doesn't come into it on all walks of life is naive. Why was Holmes always first pick, or Brighton when thet were playing badly, because they were probably on good wages. Some people need to open their eyes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 Having watch Nicky all last season and noting his goals return, do you seriously think he merits a start as a striker? Dumbarton was another example and I can see exactly why Peterhead released him. I was surprised at last weekend's substitution as were a few others judging by the shouts from the crowd. I'm sure it makes for some awkward discussions. I dont think Clark is anywhere near as bad as people are making out. Both Carmichael and Smith missed, arguably, easier chances than any Clark did on Saturday, yet neither has merited barely a mention. Instead, the player who actually did score and won us the game is criticised. It doesnt really matter what I think, or whether or not I agree with the manager. The discussion isnt whether or not Clark should be in the team or not, its whether or not Johnston is picking him because he is his assistants son. Its a ludicrous suggestion Seems I've been dragged in on the Clark discussion. I've nothing against the boy and if he's in on merit there's no problem but to suggest that politics doesn't come into it on all walks of life is naive. Why was Holmes always first pick, or Brighton when thet were playing badly, because they were probably on good wages. Some people need to open their eyes. Managers have their favourites, no doubt about that, maybe because they fit into their style of play or they think they play a particular role better than the rest. Not because they happen to be someones son. I doubt very much that Brighton was on anything remotely like "good wages" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirkyblue2 Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 I doubt very much that Brighton was on anything remotely like "good wages" it was an example, maybe not a good one. If a manager at our level has someone on good wages and he drops him then the chairman is going to question his judgement. Everyone should be in the team on merit but it doesn't always happen. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 it was an example, maybe not a good one. If a manager at our level has someone on good wages and he drops him then the chairman is going to question his judgement. Everyone should be in the team on merit but it doesn't always happen. I got the point, just pointing out your bad example As I said, every manager has favourites and, youre right, Im sure sometimes wages and reputation come into it. I would still dispute the idea that a manager, especially one starting out and looking to forge a career, would pick a player just because he is his assistants son. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawk Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 (edited) Can I ask the question then, do you think Nicky would have been offered a new contract if his father hadn't joined the management staff? Edited August 3, 2012 by Hawk 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.