Pilgrims' Patter

The Forum => The B-Ark => Topic started by: kingofnaves on September 04, 2012, 09:53:42 PM

Title: 1 2 or 3 should go?
Post by: kingofnaves on September 04, 2012, 09:53:42 PM
Should JL,GH and IF been sacked or just the JL?
Personally I would have a mass clear out !
Title: Re: 1 2 or 3 should go?
Post by: green hats mate on September 04, 2012, 09:56:47 PM
What about Newton out KON.
Title: Re: 1 2 or 3 should go?
Post by: kingofnaves on September 04, 2012, 09:59:53 PM
No Newton to stay and sack the 3 in the morning! Might aswell put John Blackwell in charge because he knows more than those 3 !
Title: Re: 1 2 or 3 should go?
Post by: green hats mate on September 04, 2012, 10:06:46 PM
Newton appointed JL and approved the other two so how does he avoid your disaprovel
Title: Re: 1 2 or 3 should go?
Post by: kingofnaves on September 04, 2012, 10:08:48 PM
If DN cares about the club and supporters he will sack them tonight!
Title: Re: 1 2 or 3 should go?
Post by: green hats mate on September 04, 2012, 10:29:36 PM
How about sacking the goalie as well KON?
Title: Re: 1 2 or 3 should go?
Post by: kingofnaves on September 04, 2012, 10:32:34 PM
No JL,GH and IF are responsible for the teams performance! Just need David Newton to act like Sir Alan Sugar in the morning "you're sacked"
Title: Re: 1 2 or 3 should go?
Post by: green hats mate on September 04, 2012, 10:44:19 PM
Alternativly he could say  "i,m out "
Just checked on your prediction for tonights game KON and your judgement does not look sound !!
Title: Re: 1 2 or 3 should go?
Post by: kingofnaves on September 05, 2012, 09:31:13 PM
Look at my predication on LIVE !
After we had beaten Histon.Looks like my predication is 100% right since then!
"21:40
Comment From Kingofnaves 
Enjoy the result! These performances won't last long!
"
Title: Re: 1 2 or 3 should go?
Post by: Pilgrim86 on September 06, 2012, 07:51:12 PM
And you take pride in that?
Title: Re: 1 2 or 3 should go?
Post by: kingofnaves on September 06, 2012, 09:18:32 PM
More pride than some players are showing on the pitch!
Title: Re: 1 2 or 3 should go?
Post by: noughtyforties on September 07, 2012, 06:54:11 AM
And you take pride in that?

Why don't you get your head around the fact that not everyone shares your blinkered view of this football club; sure there's plenty of good happening with the great work Craig does commercially and with the programme, the youth and reserve set up and all the great community work. However 95% of us judge by one thing, 1st team results and the fact is an idiot can see that they have been at best patchy and at worst diabolical since JL took over. No one takes any pride in predicting defeats but the FACT is we've had let down after let down the last 12 months and KoN was only stating what was blindingly obvious.

Stop looking to defend the indefensible Scott, it makes you look a bigger idiot than when you defended Evans to the hilt in the last season of his regime.
 
Title: Re: 1 2 or 3 should go?
Post by: dubai camel on September 07, 2012, 10:26:58 AM
A prediction league is exactly what it says on the tin. You predict the score!

You choose a winner, therefore there is a loser or of course you can predict a draw.

It's a competition, so you do your best to get the prediction right, which means at the minute you probably wouldn't choose an away win for BUFC - take pride in your prediction, but nobody takes pride in the loss.

JL's record since he took over, wouldn't have anyone put their last £10 on a BUFC win, let's be honest ...
Title: Re: 1 2 or 3 should go?
Post by: Ernie100 on September 07, 2012, 10:44:45 AM
I know this a "Forum" would it be possible for Ken to set up an "Againstum" then we would have a separate site for both sides of the argument, and therefore choose which one we prefer to read - optimists and pessimists catered for. ;D ;D
Title: Re: 1 2 or 3 should go?
Post by: woad_pilgrim on September 07, 2012, 01:26:52 PM
I know this a "Forum" would it be possible for Ken to set up an "Againstum" then we would have a separate site for both sides of the argument, and therefore choose which one we prefer to read - optimists and pessimists catered for. ;D ;D
It's be much less fun then though  ;)
Title: Re: 1 2 or 3 should go?
Post by: green hats mate on September 07, 2012, 06:11:19 PM
I think Scott may be wiser now .  Some have still not learned the lessons of the Evans era , advocating spending more than our income permits .
Title: Re: 1 2 or 3 should go?
Post by: noughtyforties on September 07, 2012, 06:29:08 PM
I don't dislike Scott and I take my hat off to his dedication to the cause.

But.......

KoN has been going as long as I have so he's hardly a 'non supporter' is he, as long as he pays his way he's is entitled to his opinion, he wants success as much as any of us, but its hardly rocket science to see the team isn't any better prepared than last seasons.
Title: Re: 1 2 or 3 should go?
Post by: Ed Kandi on September 07, 2012, 06:35:26 PM
  Some have still not learned the lessons of the Evans era , advocating spending more than our income permits .

There will always be a few hoping for BUFC to spend its way to success.
The off-field progress has been good since the Chestnuts arrived, hope they stick around long enough to see the footballing side catch up  :dan
Title: Re: 1 2 or 3 should go?
Post by: green hats mate on September 07, 2012, 06:48:24 PM
Hardly rocket science that picking a manager is a complex process .
Worthless soundbites come easy "contacts , cheap option , ambitous , push the boat out "to name a few .
Can,t recall a name being but forward by advocates of chance to fit the bill .
Like suggested on patter previously a manager should be given a couple of years to establish themselve .
Anyone disagree?
Title: Re: 1 2 or 3 should go?
Post by: Myleftfoot on September 07, 2012, 06:50:05 PM
Hardly rocket science that picking a manager is a complex process .
Worthless soundbites come easy "contacts , cheap option , ambitous , push the boat out "to name a few .
Can,t recall a name being but forward by advocates of chance to fit the bill .
Like suggested on patter previously a manager should be given a couple of years to establish themselve .
Anyone disagree?




Nice post GHM.
Title: Re: 1 2 or 3 should go?
Post by: father Ted on September 07, 2012, 07:23:12 PM
 "Like suggested on patter previously a manager should be given a couple of years to establish themselve .
Anyone disagree?"

 Well,,I dunno .Only the chairman can sack a manager ,and maybe the style depends on the way that chairman operates   his business .
 Maybe someone can open a thread , now asking "If BUFC lose to CBFC tomorrow , should there be a change of management .?.
            No /Don't Know / Yes  .
Title: Re: 1 2 or 3 should go?
Post by: kingofnaves on September 07, 2012, 08:10:42 PM
Did Scott and Hurst overspend?Im sure Mr Newton wouldnt allow them to overspend!
Title: Re: 1 2 or 3 should go?
Post by: Lord Cutler Knobhead on September 07, 2012, 08:32:33 PM
And only the chairman has the ability to see everything aside from the results.  There is more to managing a football club than results, he can see the training, the bottom line, the work thats going in and the bigger picture.

Only the men at the top will know if they're getting value for their money.
Title: Re: 1 2 or 3 should go?
Post by: green hats mate on September 07, 2012, 09:01:58 PM
Don,t think DN would let them overspend but the budget has been reduced twice since .
Rob & Paul had the one ingredient most the manager bashers on here did not see,  luck .
They had the backbone of a good squad to bring from Ilkeston thanks (dare i say it) to David holdsworth,  plus thanks to steve walsh for recommend a outstanding defender in Pearson .
Assembling a team of part-time players at a relative outpost like Boston involves far more than the fantasy football managers on here fail to think about
Title: Re: 1 2 or 3 should go?
Post by: Myleftfoot on September 07, 2012, 09:10:51 PM
Don,t think DN would let them overspend but the budget has been reduced twice since .
Rob & Paul had the one ingredient most the manager bashers on here did not see,  luck .
They had the backbone of a good squad to bring from Ilkeston thanks (dare i say it) to David holdsworth,  plus thanks to steve walsh for recommend a outstanding defender in Pearson .
Assembling a team of part-time players at a relative outpost like Boston involves far more than the fantasy football managers on here fail to think about



Absolutely right GHM. Some on here just look at the present and not the long story!  :(
Title: Re: 1 2 or 3 should go?
Post by: kingofnaves on September 07, 2012, 09:23:46 PM
And some can't see no further than their nose end!
Title: Re: 1 2 or 3 should go?
Post by: Myleftfoot on September 07, 2012, 09:35:58 PM
And some can't see no further than their nose end!




Hey big nose be quiet !!! mind the letter box ;)
Title: Re: 1 2 or 3 should go?
Post by: Lord Cutler Knobhead on September 07, 2012, 11:41:05 PM
"If BUFC lose to CBFC tomorrow , should there be a change of management .?.
            No /Don't Know / Yes  .

It's not that cut throat, it soon will be, but I think David isn't going to make a call on 90 minutes of football away from home in the arseend of nowhere.
Title: Re: 1 2 or 3 should go?
Post by: dt woodhall on September 08, 2012, 10:07:47 AM
all should go.

i still think there are lots of players we have seen this year that are better than what we have got so far, and they will cost significantly less in wages than our existing players.

the existing managers do not seem capable of identifying and getting this sort of player to come and play for the team.

lets see what happens in 3 or 4 games time if the results stay this bad.
Title: Re: 1 2 or 3 should go?
Post by: Fishtoft Crew on September 08, 2012, 11:39:20 AM
Thats funny they would cost considerably less. I suggest DT you speak to a few and ask the question.
Title: Re: 1 2 or 3 should go?
Post by: green hats mate on September 08, 2012, 02:21:22 PM
Name these players that are better than we have that will come and play at Boston for the  same pay as they are on with their present club ?.
A case of not thinking it out dt.
Title: Re: 1 2 or 3 should go?
Post by: picky on September 08, 2012, 05:55:39 PM
one thing people aint thinking about is the location of players we cant have players traveling stupid miles to play for us as holgrove n white proved last season we not in a great catch area for players being released from higher clubs
Title: Re: 1 2 or 3 should go?
Post by: BosLeake on September 08, 2012, 06:12:54 PM
one thing people aint thinking about is the location of players we cant have players traveling stupid miles to play for us as holgrove n white proved last season we not in a great catch area for players being released from higher clubs

Welcome and very true.
Title: Re: 1 2 or 3 should go?
Post by: green hats mate on September 08, 2012, 11:12:35 PM
Exactly ,  some cannot think that out , picky & bosleake.
Title: Re: 1 2 or 3 should go?
Post by: kingofnaves on September 08, 2012, 11:19:11 PM
Same old excuse! Scott and hurst could find them.
Title: Re: 1 2 or 3 should go?
Post by: shorty2kuk on September 08, 2012, 11:21:07 PM
Same old excuse! Scott and hurst could find them.

found in the ilkeston team
Title: Re: 1 2 or 3 should go?
Post by: green hats mate on September 08, 2012, 11:23:02 PM
No KON , it was david holdswoth who found most of them ( plus SW who found our best player Pearson )  Budget reduced a couple of times too .
Title: Re: 1 2 or 3 should go?
Post by: Lord Cutler Knobhead on September 09, 2012, 12:03:21 AM
No KON , it was david holdswoth who found most of them ( plus SW who found our best player Pearson )  Budget reduced a couple of times too .

Let's not be-little the Scott n Hurst revelation, they turned us round.  Yes they inherited an Ilkeston team and brought much of it along for the ride, but they dug out results and got players to perform above their station regularly. 
Title: Re: 1 2 or 3 should go?
Post by: kingofnaves on September 09, 2012, 05:35:10 AM
Just a minute! So what if Holdsworth found then.Your argument is that players won't travel to Boston?
Title: Re: 1 2 or 3 should go?
Post by: Fishtoft Crew on September 09, 2012, 09:45:55 AM
I think what hes trying to say is that with reduced wages at this level of football players wont travel so far as the wages dont cut it. Totally agree with Bos Leake JL is forming a squad that geographically makes sense for the travelling to training and budget etc. The team to me is being around youth who may not be good enough to walk away with the league but compete and develop. This isnt the club that can pay players in London a hefty wage to travel to matches and not train with the club like past managers have allowed.

Dont get me wrong would love to see a David Rennie type centre back or an Andy Kirk type centre forward but we are where we are.
Title: Re: 1 2 or 3 should go?
Post by: Lord Cutler Knobhead on September 09, 2012, 10:11:59 AM
Dont get me wrong would love to see a David Rennie type centre back or an Andy Kirk type centre forward but we are where we are.

The problem with that kind of squad building is that for every Andy Kirk, there are 3 Miguel De Souza's
Title: Re: 1 2 or 3 should go?
Post by: truffleshuffle on September 09, 2012, 10:20:09 AM
I know we train mostly at RAF Cranwell to try and reduce the travelling for the players midweek but maybe we should look at training even further afield i.e. the Nottingham / Leicester area to give us more scope when it comes to attracting players.
Title: Re: 1 2 or 3 should go?
Post by: Bostonshire on September 09, 2012, 11:34:07 AM
I know we train mostly at RAF Cranwell to try and reduce the travelling for the players midweek but maybe we should look at training even further afield i.e. the Nottingham / Leicester area to give us more scope when it comes to attracting players.

I Seemed to think a few year back we did a bit of training towards sheffeild area. prob worth a punt
Title: Re: 1 2 or 3 should go?
Post by: green hats mate on September 09, 2012, 02:01:01 PM
A lessoin reality for the dreamers demanding the managers bring in good players from further a field .
Teams like Guiseley , halifax hyde etc get the pick of good quality ex- league players on the doorstep .
OK, you want to entice them to Boston !
 
 1  To come to Boston would involve 3 trips a week totaling 600miles + for training and   
     matches .
     Cost :  Petrol, wear and tear of car ,  £95 / week .

  2  To fit in this travelling they would have to probably lose 3/4 hours pay a week at day
      job .
     Cost:    Depending on profession , say £50 a week

If they come to Boston for a extra £200 wage a week, taking into account above figures +
extra tax and NI they will make a net gain of about £40 a week .

So to pocket £40 week extra (less the cost of fish and chips on the way home three times a week) to come to Boston what impact  does it have .?
 Mainly they exchange spending 12hrs at home with family for 12 hrs a week driving along
a motorway .
If we were realistic about tempting these players to Boston offering to double their wages would be futile.

These moaners are wise sticking to fantasy football ,  mush easier than the real thing .
Title: Re: 1 2 or 3 should go?
Post by: Pilgrim86 on September 09, 2012, 02:42:59 PM
I know we train mostly at RAF Cranwell to try and reduce the travelling for the players midweek but maybe we should look at training even further afield i.e. the Nottingham / Leicester area to give us more scope when it comes to attracting players.

I Seemed to think a few year back we did a bit of training towards sheffeild area. prob worth a punt
I knew several years ago, the club trained somewhere near Newark
Title: Re: 1 2 or 3 should go?
Post by: ceamboy on September 09, 2012, 05:40:55 PM

I think it was Balderton near Newark where they used to train,cannot remember which manager was in charge in those days, I should think that Balderton training facilities are  more expensive than Cranwell.
Title: Re: 1 2 or 3 should go?
Post by: kingofnaves on September 09, 2012, 07:01:16 PM
Not far from the Sugar Beet factory?
Title: Re: 1 2 or 3 should go?
Post by: Myleftfoot on September 09, 2012, 10:53:31 PM
The Grove School, Balderton. Cheap as chips.  :)
Title: Re: 1 2 or 3 should go?
Post by: woad_pilgrim on September 09, 2012, 11:12:02 PM
all should go.

i still think there are lots of players we have seen this year that are better than what we have got so far, and they will cost significantly less in wages than our existing players.

the existing managers do not seem capable of identifying and getting this sort of player to come and play for the team.

lets see what happens in 3 or 4 games time if the results stay this bad.
I don't agree we have seen lots of oppo players better than what we have, for me ability wise we have much better players than any opponent we've played so far. What we have seen is players that have grafted harder, Rob Scott used to say (on a fairly regular basis) that at this level (and when we where 1 below) that players need to earn the right to play. Personally I think that is where we have been lacking, we haven't competed enough physically to earn the right to play our football. There were signs yesterday that the players have finally realised that they don't just need to out-pass a team but need to out-battle them as well.
Title: Re: 1 2 or 3 should go?
Post by: truffleshuffle on September 09, 2012, 11:18:52 PM
all should go.

i still think there are lots of players we have seen this year that are better than what we have got so far, and they will cost significantly less in wages than our existing players.

the existing managers do not seem capable of identifying and getting this sort of player to come and play for the team.

lets see what happens in 3 or 4 games time if the results stay this bad.
I don't agree we have seen lots of oppo players better than what we have, for me ability wise we have much better players than any opponent we've played so far. What we have seen is players that have grafted harder, Rob Scott used to say (on a fairly regular basis) that at this level (and when we where 1 below) that players need to earn the right to play. Personally I think that is where we have been lacking, we haven't competed enough physically to earn the right to play our football. There were signs yesterday that the players have finally realised that they don't just need to out-pass a team but need to out-battle them as well.

I remember Kettering kicking lumps out of us for 45 minutes then tearing us apart with football in the second half! Not the only side to do that to us under TT
Title: Re: 1 2 or 3 should go?
Post by: Cavalier on September 15, 2012, 06:37:00 PM
Should JL,GH and IF been sacked or just the JL?
Personally I would have a mass clear out !

And you would have taken great pride in your astute judgement if this "mass clear-out" had happened before the Colwyn Bay game, presumably lauding the new incumbents as a "breath of fresh air" and "just what was needed".  Now we have had two good wins I would be interested to hear if you still have nothing good to say about the management.

Title: Re: 1 2 or 3 should go?
Post by: kingofnaves on September 15, 2012, 09:50:53 PM
Look at their record! Can't argue with me on that one?
Title: Re: 1 2 or 3 should go?
Post by: Myleftfoot on September 15, 2012, 10:05:53 PM
Look at their record! Can't argue with me on that one?


 ::) What a joker.
Title: Re: 1 2 or 3 should go?
Post by: kingofnaves on September 15, 2012, 10:19:01 PM
Look at their record! Can't argue with me on that one?


 ::) What a joker.
;D