Jon
Admin 
Posts: 6,912
|
Post by Jon on Jan 31, 2013 0:38:10 GMT
So the latest moans and groans are : we shouldn't be developing younger players we should be buying the finished articles we sit back towards the end of matches and let the opposition back in the game the directors don't want promotion Oh and by the way our attendances are nowhere near those of our rivals. January 2013 or October 1935? Plus ça change .....   |
|
rjdgull
TFF member
Admin
Posts: 12,232 
|
Post by rjdgull on Jan 31, 2013 12:51:44 GMT
Indeed.
When you compare the spending power of Di Canio last year, much of the talent brought in such as Alan Connell (115k?),Paul Benson (swap for Leon Clarke), Luke Rooney (six figure sum and sent out on loan) now surplus to requirements, it shows you can still compete to the extent where Di Canio wasn't prepared to extend Bodin's loan period as we were snapping at their heels despite being on a shoestring.
As always, it comes down to economics and we will always have to box clever with a smaller squad and a reliance on unproven youth products....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2013 18:34:07 GMT
I love the bit about the directors "not wanting promotion". I can't remember when I first heard something like this but I was pretty young at the time. On first hearing I thought it was a startling piece of information and a real insider's piece of hot gossip. Now I suspect it's been said as long as football has been a business. And, for the romantics out there, that's now been for around 120 years (including at least ninety years at Plainmoor).
Likewise I'm intrigued to learn that arguments in favour of some sort of "youth policy" - over that of hiring knackered old professionals - date back to the 1930s if not beyond. Again that's a debate that I thought only dated from when I first became interested in football. It's also one that would fly in the face of the belief that, when I were a lad, all the team came from within twenty miles of the ground. Or, for that matter, the other claim that footballers of the past stayed with clubs for ever and a day because they were predominantly loyal and local.
And that's an interesting appreciation, isn't it? Those things that we may date from when we first "knew about football" - be it the 1950s, 1970s or 1990s - when, in actual fact, they pre-date the lot of us.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2013 21:38:22 GMT
I love the bit about the directors "not wanting promotion". I can't remember when I first heard something like this but I was pretty young at the time. Funny that, because for as long as I remember Chesterfield's directors" didn't want promotion" either. Until 1980, when they suddenly decided they did and paid huge amounts of borrowed money in order to do just that. Sadly, it was a gamble that failed, the players were all sold at knockdown prices, the team were relegated and came within hours of extinction before being saved by a local businessman. Which all goes to show that nowt ever changes and thet a well-run club should never be relegated to the Conference whilst ever there is another, financially desperate, team hurtling past them. Recent examples include Luton, Halifax, Boston United, Darlo, Stockport and, this year, unless they manage to put it off for another season when they can dispute last place with Pompey, Plymouth Argyle. |
|
Jon
Admin
Posts: 6,912
|
Post by Jon on Feb 21, 2013 22:55:37 GMT
And that's an interesting appreciation, isn't it? Those things that we may date from when we first "knew about football" - be it the 1950s, 1970s or 1990s - when, in actual fact, they pre-date the lot of us. Plus ça change .... |
|
