Eastleigh friendly
Select messages from
# through # FAQ
[/[Print]\]
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  :| |:
CTFC.net Fans Forum -> -> Talk football

#31:  Author: WarrenLocation: Spain PostPosted: Sun Jul 27, 2014 10:14 pm
    —
Crawley Dan wrote:
lee 66 wrote:
Crawley Dan wrote:
David R wrote:
To some nasty anti CTFC bashing, too small for league one etc.


We are tinpot, and if they are saying 'too small for league one' then they are only telling the truth. There are plenty of things to back that up. For a start, worst away support in league 1 last season, fifth worst (i think) in the whole football league. Home crowds of about 2800, for league one, is embarrassing.


Come on Dan behave.We certainly deserve our league one status


Never said we didn't, I simply was stating facts. We are the smallest club in the league, and that will continue to be the case for some time IMO. I don't care what others think about us, I was simply saying that we are IMO too small for this league. If we were the size of most of the teams in this league, we would think we are too small. However I am more than happy to see us over achieve season after season if it means staying in this league, as it's a great league to be a part of.


I'd certainly say Fleetwood are smaller than us.

#32:  Author: lee 66 PostPosted: Sun Jul 27, 2014 10:35 pm
    —
Warren wrote:
Crawley Dan wrote:
lee 66 wrote:
Crawley Dan wrote:
David R wrote:
To some nasty anti CTFC bashing, too small for league one etc.


We are tinpot, and if they are saying 'too small for league one' then they are only telling the truth. There are plenty of things to back that up. For a start, worst away support in league 1 last season, fifth worst (i think) in the whole football league. Home crowds of about 2800, for league one, is embarrassing.


Come on Dan behave.We certainly deserve our league one status


Never said we didn't, I simply was stating facts. We are the smallest club in the league, and that will continue to be the case for some time IMO. I don't care what others think about us, I was simply saying that we are IMO too small for this league. If we were the size of most of the teams in this league, we would think we are too small. However I am more than happy to see us over achieve season after season if it means staying in this league, as it's a great league to be a part of.


I'd certainly say Fleetwood are smaller than us.


One mans winkle will be smaller then another mans winkle.It doesn't stop either trying to pull the best looking bird in the disco does it.
Crawley has a small winkle in league terms.It won't stop us competing with the leagues bigger winkles and bringing them down in size will it.
Wink
In other words there's more to it then just the size of ones winkle.

#33:  Author: Astral Voyager PostPosted: Sun Jul 27, 2014 10:53 pm
    —
lee 66 wrote:
Warren wrote:
Crawley Dan wrote:
lee 66 wrote:
Crawley Dan wrote:
David R wrote:
To some nasty anti CTFC bashing, too small for league one etc.


We are tinpot, and if they are saying 'too small for league one' then they are only telling the truth. There are plenty of things to back that up. For a start, worst away support in league 1 last season, fifth worst (i think) in the whole football league. Home crowds of about 2800, for league one, is embarrassing.


Come on Dan behave.We certainly deserve our league one status


Never said we didn't, I simply was stating facts. We are the smallest club in the league, and that will continue to be the case for some time IMO. I don't care what others think about us, I was simply saying that we are IMO too small for this league. If we were the size of most of the teams in this league, we would think we are too small. However I am more than happy to see us over achieve season after season if it means staying in this league, as it's a great league to be a part of.


I'd certainly say Fleetwood are smaller than us.


One mans winkle will be smaller then another mans winkle.It doesn't stop either trying to pull the best looking bird in the disco does it.
Crawley has a small winkle in league terms.It won't stop us competing with the leagues bigger winkles and bringing them down in size will it.
Wink
In other words there's more to it then just the size of ones winkle.


Bet Bobson has no such problems bigwave

#34:  Author: Paulc222 PostPosted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 5:46 am
    —
It's about how you use it too Smile

#35:  Author: IanLocation: The Parish of Rusper PostPosted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 6:39 am
    —
Simon wrote:
Crawley69 wrote:
The only issue I do take up is Dunford interview saying the Drurry and Mcfaz sales and their wages would be reinvested in the squad. I just don't see the players we have signed subsequently account for the half million plus there wages and transfer fees freed up.


For once in a long time I agree with you here. I remember MD giving that interview. I would love to know what he really meant as I can't recall any signings that would remotely account for their fees and wages.


MAYBE it's going to be re-invested in the squad... in such a manner that the owners no longer need to plough 30k a week of their own money in Idea

#36:  Author: backofthenetLocation: Oop North PostPosted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 11:02 am
    —
David R wrote:
I just dont equate being a small club to being 'Tinpot', not even sure what 'Tinpot' means.


Here are some definitions -

http://www.urbandictionary.com.....erm=Tinpot

I think most clubs in L1 & 2 could fit some of those.

#37:  Author: Simon PostPosted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 11:40 am
    —
Ian wrote:
Simon wrote:
Crawley69 wrote:
The only issue I do take up is Dunford interview saying the Drurry and Mcfaz sales and their wages would be reinvested in the squad. I just don't see the players we have signed subsequently account for the half million plus there wages and transfer fees freed up.


For once in a long time I agree with you here. I remember MD giving that interview. I would love to know what he really meant as I can't recall any signings that would remotely account for their fees and wages.


MAYBE it's going to be re-invested in the squad... in such a manner that the owners no longer need to plough 30k a week of their own money in Idea


I don't have a problem with that Ian, I have always advocated the club lives within its means even if it is at a lower level than it is now.

However I do believe the club should be open and honest with its communications. The interview with MD on Youtube is very specific - says it WILL be re-invested not in MAYBE re-invested.

#38:  Author: IanLocation: The Parish of Rusper PostPosted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 12:12 pm
    —
Simon wrote:
Ian wrote:
Simon wrote:
Crawley69 wrote:
The only issue I do take up is Dunford interview saying the Drurry and Mcfaz sales and their wages would be reinvested in the squad. I just don't see the players we have signed subsequently account for the half million plus there wages and transfer fees freed up.


For once in a long time I agree with you here. I remember MD giving that interview. I would love to know what he really meant as I can't recall any signings that would remotely account for their fees and wages.


MAYBE it's going to be re-invested in the squad... in such a manner that the owners no longer need to plough 30k a week of their own money in Idea


I don't have a problem with that Ian, I have always advocated the club lives within its means even if it is at a lower level than it is now.

However I do believe the club should be open and honest with its communications. The interview with MD on Youtube is very specific - says it WILL be re-invested not in MAYBE re-invested.


My point was that it is being reinvested, but MAYBE it's re-investment replaces some or all of the additional funding rather than being in addition to it.

#39:  Author: WarrenLocation: Spain PostPosted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 3:24 pm
    —
Highlights from the game here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAqyvjBg8ZE

#40:  Author: NorthgateRedLocation: BW Stand PostPosted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 7:41 pm
    —
Ian wrote:
Simon wrote:
Ian wrote:
Simon wrote:
Crawley69 wrote:
The only issue I do take up is Dunford interview saying the Drurry and Mcfaz sales and their wages would be reinvested in the squad. I just don't see the players we have signed subsequently account for the half million plus there wages and transfer fees freed up.


For once in a long time I agree with you here. I remember MD giving that interview. I would love to know what he really meant as I can't recall any signings that would remotely account for their fees and wages.


MAYBE it's going to be re-invested in the squad... in such a manner that the owners no longer need to plough 30k a week of their own money in Idea


I don't have a problem with that Ian, I have always advocated the club lives within its means even if it is at a lower level than it is now.

However I do believe the club should be open and honest with its communications. The interview with MD on Youtube is very specific - says it WILL be re-invested not in MAYBE re-invested.


My point was that it is being reinvested, but MAYBE it's re-investment replaces some or all of the additional funding rather than being in addition to it.

I'm sure the refurbished pitch cost quite a bit. Probably where some of the money went.



CTFC.net Fans Forum -> -> Talk football


output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT + 1 Hour

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  :| |:
Page 3 of 3

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group