by rhroyal » 03 Feb 2010 09:34
by Ian Royal » 03 Feb 2010 10:17
by rabidbee » 03 Feb 2010 10:29
by Baines » 03 Feb 2010 10:47
by CMRoyal » 03 Feb 2010 10:48
by Vision » 03 Feb 2010 11:07
rabidbee Even when the club and the holding company post fully-audited accounts, people refuse to believe them. The club has no chance when it comes to communicating with fans, because there will always be a large group who refuse to listen.
by Still Hate Futcher! » 03 Feb 2010 11:43
by Terminal Boardom » 03 Feb 2010 12:00
rabidbee Even when the club and the holding company post fully-audited accounts, people refuse to believe them. The club has no chance when it comes to communicating with fans, because there will always be a large group who refuse to listen.
by brendywendy » 03 Feb 2010 12:01
by Thaumagurist* » 03 Feb 2010 12:02
Still Hate Futcher! I dunno which is the more shocking - a sound, well reasoned piece by Steve Claridge or the sound, well reasoned thread on hobnob!
by Vision » 03 Feb 2010 12:05
Terminal Boardomrabidbee Even when the club and the holding company post fully-audited accounts, people refuse to believe them. The club has no chance when it comes to communicating with fans, because there will always be a large group who refuse to listen.
Why do you think that is?
by shoey » 03 Feb 2010 12:33
by Mr Optimist » 03 Feb 2010 14:15
by andrew1957 » 03 Feb 2010 14:27
by RoyalBlue » 03 Feb 2010 14:59
rabidbee Even when the club and the holding company post fully-audited accounts, people refuse to believe them. The club has no chance when it comes to communicating with fans, because there will always be a large group who refuse to listen.
andrew1957 For anyone doubting just how lucky we are to have JM just read the Guardian articles about Portsmouth. Apparently the ground and club are subject to unknown mortgages and could be seized by a HK businessman. Looks like tens of millions may have disappeared from the club coffers.
The ground may yet get seized and sold for building land. Shades of Brighton losing the Goldstone Ground and having years in the wilderness before they could afford the new stadium at Falmer.
Portsmouth FC may well cease to exist if new backers cannot be found.
by Ian Royal » 03 Feb 2010 16:02
by brendywendy » 03 Feb 2010 16:31
Very true. And the reason for that is we were given the mushroom treatment for so long. Even now, when a bit more light is being shown, Madejski and co still can't resist the temptation to treat us with liberal helpings of bull shyte e.g. talk of PL ambition shortly before embarking on savage cloth cutting.
It is they who have lit and then fuelled what their supporters now criticise as unrealistic expectations amongst some of our fan base.
by Ian Royal » 03 Feb 2010 17:02
brendywendyVery true. And the reason for that is we were given the mushroom treatment for so long. Even now, when a bit more light is being shown, Madejski and co still can't resist the temptation to treat us with liberal helpings of bull shyte e.g. talk of PL ambition shortly before embarking on savage cloth cutting.
It is they who have lit and then fuelled what their supporters now criticise as unrealistic expectations amongst some of our fan base.
i can only assume that you ignored all of the statemens you didnt like, and just picked out the positive bits.
at every point along the way JM has made his policy very clear
at every point we have been told we would be cutting the cloth, over and over again.
we knew our best players would be sold last season and this, and would have to rebuild- that was the whole rodgers message.
yes he and JM both said we would be looking to go back up- but of course they said that- they wouldnt be much of a leader if they said the opposite, of course the aim is to go back up, BUT only with a well run solvent and financially viable club.
but i dont think any of that ever over shadowed the cloth cutting to the extent that i didnt realise it would happen.
by Sun Tzu » 03 Feb 2010 17:11
Ian Royal
This.
Cutting our coat to fit our cloth and aiming to get back into the Premier League are not mutually exclusive.
by brendywendy » 03 Feb 2010 17:16
Users browsing this forum: Vision and 241 guests