Jump to content

gingerjon

Coach
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    24,950

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    85

Posts posted by gingerjon

  1. Posted · Report reply

    1 hour ago, Bleep1673 said:

    FA Cup Qualifying round 1 this week, a selected, personal round up of scores....

    Bedfont Sports 3-1 Lewes (Lewes is a lovely town)

    Chatham Town 3-2 Southall (Southall is a great place for a curry)

    Chertsey Town 0-0 Leatherhead Chertsey win 5-4 on pens (Chertsey was one of my 1st agency jobs)

    Hastings Utd 0-0 Chesham Utd (I live here) Hastings 6-5 on pens

    Leiston 5-1 Biggleswade T ( My ex wife lived in Leiston)

    Little Common 0-3 Corinthian Casuals (I hate Little Common, just the other side of Bexhill, such a sterile town)

    Margate 1-2 Hayes & Yeading (I used to live close to Hayes FC)

    Radcliffe 5-3 Workington (My uncle used to live in the street behind Radcliffe's ground)

    Whitby Town 1-1 Warrington Rylands (I remember playing for Irlam Hornets at Rylands) Rylands win 4-3 on pens

     

    Little Common play at The Oval in Eastbourne now.

    Amusingly, Sidley United now play at Little Common.

  2. Posted · Report reply

    Just now, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

    Just found this on BBC

    If I was doing this again I would not do the testing," Orient chairman Mark Travis told BBC Radio 5 Live.

    "This is an incentive not to test and that is bad for football and bad for health and safety."

    Ah okay. I think, and this may shock you, they've drawn something slightly out of context there. He was clear throughout the interview that testing was right and player safety was the most important aspect. It was only when referring to the competitive and commercial advantage to be gained by avoiding testing that he said the above - hence the second line about the incentives.

  3. Posted · Report reply

    2 minutes ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

    I believe he also said that next time they wouldn't bother testing (as it's not mandatory for EFL clubs).

    I think what he said was that it was right that they tested (the tests were paid for by Spurs) and right that the match was called off but drew attention to the fact that they might now be punished for doing the right thing whereas other clubs had declined tests and so therefore couldn't have any positives ...

    ... which does show the issue of having two completely different testing regimes and requirements in place in a single competition.

    • Like 2

  4. Posted · Report reply

    On the subject of being innovative and all things like that, it's worth, if you can, digging out the interview with the Leyton Orient chairman that was on Five Live last night. He was on in response to his team's match being called off thanks to positive covid tests. As the match was going to be on the TV that's £150,000 his club now isn't going to have and so he was talking about what they are doing to generate income.

    He listed a lot of the things that are mentioned regularly on here. Paid-for streaming, partnerships, community activities, other commercial streams away from matchday ticket income. All very positive which means they will only lose £1.5m if they play a full season with no fans in the stands.

    Shouting "be innovative" will fix nothing. At best, it will reduce the losses a small amount. Without fans in the stands the 2021 season shouldn't even start.

  5. Posted · Report reply

    40 minutes ago, tim2 said:

    Chairman of Dover Athletic saying as much on TV - they can't survive with no matchday income. No TV money, sponsors will drop away, they are dead.

    My club is at that level. 150 years of history could disappear next week just as they seem to have turned some kind of survival corner. And all for no real justifiable reason.

     

     

    As far as I can see, if you're grassroots by definition (so Isthmian/NPL/Southern and under) then you stand a chance. Over that but below the Premier League then it's going to be carnage.

  9. Posted · Report reply

    If not October then when? This is my worry now. Because we have to assume that if we move to greater restrictions now - at the start of the Autumn - that we're looking at having disruption well past Christmas. And if that's the case then any new test events for elite sport wouldn't begin until well after the festive period.

    I'd say fans in attendance for the start of 2021's season is very much under threat.

    • Sad 1

  14. Posted · Report reply

    54 minutes ago, DavidM said:

    I agree with you in the sense there’s no room for common sense at all . Not saying that’s right or wrong , but at times it seems robotic and lacking in empathy to the game . The handball rule has got ridiculous in so many instances , and the keeper having one foot literally an inch off the line - with the game actually stopped to go back to it , seem a tad unpalatable really . But this is where you go with technology . Once it’s there it creeps further and further in until it’s running your game . I think the same about watching lower league rugby to be honest . I’m home by quarter to five and you spend days arguing about the decisions till next match 

    I think a lot of people didn't realise that the Premier League only really introduced a 'light' version of VAR last season. They tried to not have to put in the full version - the one that those of us who saw it introduced at the Women's World Cup in 2019 looked at in horror. However, they have been leaned on (I think by UEFA) to standardise with the full on version.

    The referees have no room for manoeuvre here. They have to implement the rules to the letter.

  15. Posted · Report reply

    11 minutes ago, Robthegasman said:

    With the news that Macclesfield Town FC have gone bust for no doubt a variety of reasons,and yes no doubt mismanagement over a period of time was one,could we see the same happen to some of our clubs with what has been going on?

     I do genuinely fear for the future of many clubs.

     

    We've already lost one club from Super League.

    • Like 3

  16. Posted · Report reply

    7 hours ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

    Unfortunately it did seem very one sided when I tuned in on Sky.

    It would be. That's why Notre Dame scheduled it and South Florida will have taken the payment to play it. Whoever scheduled it for Sky did so because either they don't have access to any other rights (they're on BT), there was nothing else available in the time slot (not true, I don't think), or because they simply didn't know and thought Notre Dame would be a good game to show (quite possible).

    • Like 1

  20. Posted · Report reply

    2 minutes ago, yipyee said:

    Sad sad biased people who cant see past their noses

    You're good at this. Convincing anyone.

    But, anyway, London was fifteen years ago and, I write this as a London supporter, utterly ridiculous. I was glad from an entirely selfish point of view it worked out how it did but, ultimately, it set in train the rushed failure that was Quins RL and the many subsequent problems. The rules were sorted out subsequently.

    Widnes and others have been docked competition points. Twelve seems to be the starting point. If Toronto start next season in Super League then, by recent example, they should start at -12.

    As for paying players. I am still struggling to understand supposed rugby league fans who think this should be an optional extra. Widnes, in the example above, found ways to ensure players were paid.

    Still, I'm sure all good business make it clear that their drones will only be paid if the owner is feeling happy and there should be no expectation otherwise.

    • Like 2

  21. Posted · Report reply

    Just now, yipyee said:

    It is a business, Sport is a business, players are employees with employment contracts pensions income tax etc...

    If a company goes into administration employee wages are at risk, this proposition is no different to the process of any normal administration.

    It's funny people expect different from Widnes who very recently went into administration actually formed a new company and carried on in the same league.. didnt get forced to start from league1

    There are definitely biased people on here and it's quite sad

    Deducted 12 points? That Widnes?

    How many times were players not paid in that process?

  22. Posted · Report reply

    7 hours ago, Whippet13 said:

    He has no legal obligation to pay the players, the TU have openly said this.

    He is NOT the owner of the club but is saying he will buy the club and pay the wages if you let us into SL21.

    That is not blackmail, it is simply a business proposition from a prospective new owner.

    Blackmail would be if they were in SL and he was using this strategy to keep themselves there.

    What you are proposing he does is the equivalent of someone buying a business in administration and paying off all its debts. 

    That is a nice idea but not how reality works.

    There are a lot of very real pros and cons to Wolfpack, but you're out to lunch with this particular argument.

    Nah. This isn't business. This is sport. And even if it were business, Toronto are selling nothing to the RFL that doesn't rely on trust.

    The sport argument says pay your players.

    The trust argument says pay your players.

    Only the licking the boot argument says the players who play the game you profess to care about should be happy to be unpaid collateral damage.

  25. Posted · Report reply

    2 hours ago, Wolford6 said:

    My sister lives in London and goes to comedy clubs. She also goes to BBC radio and tv recordings. I presume she's on a list of people who routinely get asked if they want to attend.

    There is a BBC ticket mailing list. Anyone can get on it. Most of the live comedy TV shows are massively oversubscribed and go to a ballot.

×
×
  • Create New...