www.altyfans.co.uk

Quote from: Beez on September 30, 2013, 11:59:02 PM

I agree with nasha to the extent that that starting 11 should have had enough to have won the game, however as we all know it didn't.

Lee's comments with regards to not picking reeves however have left me rather stunned. Listen, a manager lives and dies by his decisions, and while I was surprised to see Reeves on the bench against Gloucester, that's the managers decision. We won the game and we moved on with Damien well rested.

However last Tuesday hardly had anybody thinking we had the new Cole and Yorke playing upfront for us. Yet that is the reason given for not starting a forward who has scored the best part of 90 goals in 2 years in a big fa cup tie? Really? He notes elsewhere in the interview that in a cup tie there are no second chances so why not pick the best side available? Not saying it would have changed the result but picking reeves wouldn't have done any harm. It just doesn't make any sense.

Listen those who know me know that I'm not Sinnotts biggest fan,
 but at the end of the day I just want this football club to win football matches regardless of who is in charge, it's nonsense like this where he makes a rod for his own back though, and as Ballers said in a great post on here yesterday, he simply does not have enough credit in the bank to allow for it.

Agreed.  I too thought that taking Reeves out of the spotlight against Gloucester was no bad thing and the manager has the right to pick and rotate as he see's fit based on what he sees and knows.

I actually like Kyle Perry but from what I hear of Ferriby and what I saw against Gloucester, he did some good flicks, a couple of good moves but didn't threaten the goal.  That's should have been enough to rotate again.

If that wasn't then not threatening the goal against Trafford surely has to be.

Against Trafford the manager opted to stick with the winning team but that was a gamble and a gamble we lost.  Not playing Reeves played a part in that but I still maintain that too many players below par against a pumped up Trafford side was the downfall.
We can't afford to gamble again on Saturday, otherwise whatever the manager says, it's then a situation with Reeves.

And despite our good league standing that can change very quickly and it won't be acceptable to have the countries top non league striker on the bench for any length of time whilst losing games.

Yes, absolutely agree that too many players were below par, lets not forget that Reeves did play in the debacles against Witton and FCUM in years gone by and we lost those games, however we must give ourselves the best possible chance, and the manager should have done that by picking his most prolific goalscorer.

Quite happy to play Stockport on a Saturday in September or march, they'll bring just as many then and the policing costs (I would imagine) would be half that they would be on A bank holiday or at Xmas.

Promoted side at home 1st up I reckon, stalybridge on aug bank hol/Easter Monday, and then colwyn bay over Xmas.

Alty 0 macc 4 was also my birthday! Never had a worse one before or since! Also the 5-0 away at hendesford in 99-2000 was utter sh*te, terrible affair.

A sh*thouse of the highest order

Some dreadful players listed there. I had wiped a few of them from memory until now... thanks for that.

Darren Pybus... blimey! Did he not scored the winner away at Slough around September/October? Last minute i think?

Nothing in this article is any different from what the majority of people that i stand near have been saying for months.

Just as i sidenote - after the manager's criticism of his players, is the chairman going to issue a statement urging 'support not criticism'?   sorry i couldn't resist.

Right OK then, i'm not a regular poster, often read but keep my distance from the whole forum thing. Just to add to other postings re; tonights game,  thought  it was a poor result tonight  v Corby, plenty of decent chances in the first half, but 2nd was poor, espicially after the subs we were lucky to claim a point if not for Coburn's heroics.

Back to my topic title though...  i'm just a little bemused as to why last night's AGM is yet to be mentioned on here yet? Is everybody just accepting that ending 2010/11 with a loss of £62,000 is simply due to loan players, a pitch cover and a new lawn mower?

Of course i (and i think most of us)  know the real answer to this query, but why is the club not just honestly admitting that we had to pay the previous manager (GH) compensation, talking to most fans it seems to be such a well known (fact?) that he was given a good compensation package? (As to be fair, are most managers when they leave a job). So why is this not transparent?

Are we really to expect that Young, Connors, Piergianni et al were that expensive last season to leave such a deficit? Blimey had we spent so much, how did we not stay up?  Do pitch covers, lawn mowers really cost that much?

I just feel (and to be fair i'm not a shareholder, would love to see the minutes and actual account figures) that we are being spun a bit of a yarn here.

Spot on Ballers. Couldn't have put it better myself!