Alain Perrin Posted 12 July, 2009 Posted 12 July, 2009 Of course that's my perception and it is all subjective and hypothetical, but having seen Malcolm in action first hand and spoken to many at the Club, then I think I am speaking from a reasonable position of strength in this issue. So with regards what the **** do I know?, then in this instance I would say quite a bit. It was more a comment on the desire for people to jump on bandwagons... I've no doubt Woggy is well thought of. Whether his impact would be as catalystic (great word!) as you suggest, who knows. I'm content to let those that run the club make those decisions (balancing finances and practicalities - preferably without fan emotions). I've not really got an opinion on whether he should come back or not.
Scudamore Posted 12 July, 2009 Posted 12 July, 2009 Are you not contradicting yourself ? I too am of the opinion Woggy was more than a kitman, however, where do you stop with who's return we should start a campaign about(less Lowe and Wilde, of course) Not really...i'm talking more from a managerial point of view. The sort of things Capello demands...like the England squad wearing their team blazers. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/international/england/2291012/Fabio-Capello-lays-down-law-for-England-stars.html A cohesive looking team will hopefully perform like one...what it looked like yesterday was somebody opened the new box of training gear and said grab what you want guys. It's a minor, fussy point perhaps but i think it all counts.
um pahars Posted 12 July, 2009 Posted 12 July, 2009 It was more a comment on the desire for people to jump on bandwagons.... Then maybe you shouldn't have put me at the forefront of your reply then, because my posts on this thread aren't bandwagon jumping by any strecth of the imagination, instead just commenting on how I think such a move "could" be beneficial for the success of the team on the pitch.
Alain Perrin Posted 12 July, 2009 Posted 12 July, 2009 Then maybe you shouldn't have put me at the forefront of your reply then, because my posts on this thread aren't bandwagon jumping by any strecth of the imagination, instead just commenting on how I think such a move "could" be beneficial for the success of the team on the pitch. I agree you're not holding the whip hand on this bandwagon, but you were commenting on: "Given the sums involved (and Malcolm was willing to take a substantial pay cut before Lowe booted him out) I would have thought it was totally feasible to accomodate both of them." Hence my "potty mouth" objection. I don't think you know what the budget targets were, or what Woggy's salary was. Anyway it really is an irrelevant argument. Let's just let those that now run the club, run the club. We can only hope they make appointments based on what the club needs, rather than gesture politics.
um pahars Posted 12 July, 2009 Posted 12 July, 2009 I don't think you know what the budget targets were, or what Woggy's salary was. I certainly didn't know the first of those points, but did have knowledge of the second (and also the reduction he was willing to take) and IMHO the sums involved aren't much. We can only hope they make appointments based on what the club needs, rather than gesture politics. And my comments were never based on gesture politics, they were based on trying to give the team any advantage, and I thought this would be a good shout given the sums involved.
Alain Perrin Posted 12 July, 2009 Posted 12 July, 2009 I certainly didn't know the first of those points, but did have knowledge of the second (and also the reduction he was willing to take) and IMHO the sums involved aren't much. Yet we went into administration for a £5K cheque..... mind you, going into admin a few weeks earlier might have been beneficial (to the club re. points deductions, not the shareholders) And my comments were never based on gesture politics, they were based on trying to give the team any advantage, and I thought this would be a good shout given the sums involved. The whole thread, Facebook group, marching band etc. is gesture politics. If the club do it for good reasons then great, but they should do it for valid reasons, not popularity.
um pahars Posted 12 July, 2009 Posted 12 July, 2009 Yet we went into administration for a £5K cheque..... mind you, going into admin a few weeks earlier might have been beneficial (to the club re. points deductions, not the shareholders) I've never been shy in saying we needed to cutback across the board, and that there would be no sacred cows with regards implementing Plan B. It is my opinion however that we should doing all we can within our financial limits to gain whatever advantage we can. And IMHO the money spent on Malcolm could/would be beneficial. The whole thread, Facebook group, marching band etc. is gesture politics. If the club do it for good reasons then great, but they should do it for valid reasons, not popularity. You won't see my name on a FaceBook petition, so maybe your initial post should have been directed at those who you felt were acting in that manner.
Alain Perrin Posted 12 July, 2009 Posted 12 July, 2009 You won't see my name on a FaceBook petition, so maybe your initial post should have been directed at those who you felt were acting in that manner. No, I think it was properly directed as was.
SW11_Saint Posted 12 July, 2009 Author Posted 12 July, 2009 Frankly I don't give a toss who the kitman is. It's no more important than who sells the pies, mans the gates, is a steward or whatever. As the Celtic song goes - "... and IF you know your history...". No further comment!
um pahars Posted 12 July, 2009 Posted 12 July, 2009 No, I think it was properly directed as was. Great logic fella. Start your pop with the names of those who have nothing to do with your following moan. Brilliant.
Nineteen Canteen Posted 12 July, 2009 Posted 12 July, 2009 Now we have the new regime, and they have promised to re-engage with the fan-base/community, can we start a petition to bring back our legendary kit-man Woggy Taylor. It just isn't the same without him. Bring back Woggy!!! Post your support here... (Admins, any chance of a sticky?) Why? Far to many legends.
Alain Perrin Posted 12 July, 2009 Posted 12 July, 2009 Great logic fella. Start your pop with the names of those who have nothing to do with your following moan. Brilliant. Um Pahars... Um No. I asked "What the **** do you know?" specifically about the statement you made : "Given the sums involved (and Malcolm was willing to take a substantial pay cut before Lowe booted him out) I would have thought it was totally feasible to accomodate both of them." You say you know how much he earned. You also agree you didn't know what the budget contraints were. ... So I think my original assertion holds. Anyway, who cares. Let's let it go and carry on arguing over Tony Adams
SW11_Saint Posted 12 July, 2009 Author Posted 12 July, 2009 Why? Far to many legends. Oh you're back. Great...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now