Screenster wrote:1 in our last 13!
Thought there were some positives today, certainly more than last week. Just hope Bennett's alright for next week.
Andy D wrote:Screenster wrote:1 in our last 13!
Thought there were some positives today, certainly more than last week. Just hope Bennett's alright for next week.
Its Points we need, not positives i'm afraid.
Andy D wrote:Screenster wrote:1 in our last 13!
Thought there were some positives today, certainly more than last week. Just hope Bennett's alright for next week.
Its Points we need, not positives i'm afraid.
Old Man Kensey wrote:Not wanting to open up the old can of worms, but any other club would of sacked the manager by now.
No longer a case of who could do better, it would be a hard push for anyone to do worse.
redrobo wrote:Just maybe for once wouldn't it be progressive to aim for mid table rather than the fight for relegation, season after season after season
P/T Indie wrote:Or at least say we are and make positive sounds instead of saying what can we do were little old Morecambe let's aim for 3rd from bottom this season.
Keith wrote:redrobo wrote:Just maybe for once wouldn't it be progressive to aim for mid table rather than the fight for relegation, season after season after season
I'm sure if Jim was given a mid-table budget he'd achieve a mid-table position. In fact, as he's being given a lower Conference budget and achieving League Two survival, perhaps a mid-League Two budget would result in the Play Offs?
Keith wrote:Keith wrote:redrobo wrote:Just maybe for once wouldn't it be progressive to aim for mid table rather than the fight for relegation, season after season after season
I'm sure if Jim was given a mid-table budget he'd achieve a mid-table position. In fact, as he's being given a lower Conference budget and achieving League Two survival, perhaps a mid-League Two budget would result in the Play Offs?
PS: If Jim WAS given a mid-League Two budget, and was still scrapping around the relegation battle, THEN I'd be agreeing with you that he needs to go, because THEN he (& we) would be under-achieving.
mrpotatohead wrote:Andy, Sammys form towards the end was dipping alarmingly, his budget was being cut, and he got out before he was pushed, Jim was a cheap option ,as we later realised there was no money, and its been all about defying the odds ever since, Jim will never be sacked as it would cost too much, but he isn't the problem, the problem is the owners.
Rod Taylor said at the time that Jim was far from the cheap option.
Bare bum wrote:I mean as a line manager and you wouldn't say to your employee that we've got you on board because you're the cheapest option.
Bare bum wrote:Rod Taylor said at the time that Jim was far from the cheap option.
But as a director you would have to say that, wouldn't you?
I mean as a line manager and you wouldn't say to your employee that we've got you on board because you're the cheapest option.
BerlinWaller wrote:Bare bum wrote:Rod Taylor said at the time that Jim was far from the cheap option.
But as a director you would have to say that, wouldn't you?
I mean as a line manager and you wouldn't say to your employee that we've got you on board because you're the cheapest option.
I don't know, do you? If Rod says that then you take it at face value I guess. There seems to be a conspiracy theory for everything the BoD's say in here.
So we are now saying we scraped the barrel when appointing Jim and the majority of Jim's signings are the same?
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 29 guests