http://www.new-606.co.uk/ Wed, 19 Jun 2013 16:05:52 +0000 MyBB http://www.new-606.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=23377 Wed, 19 Jun 2013 17:03:25 +0100 http://www.new-606.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=23377 http://www.new-606.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=23376 Wed, 19 Jun 2013 16:50:27 +0100 http://www.new-606.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=23376
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2013/...ry-hearing

Assistant manager Mauricio Taricco has had his suspension lifted.

What's it all about anyway? Are they still citing disputes over budgets or have any more facts come to light?

They're cutting it fine whichever way you look at it. They're not leaving Poyet or a new manager much time for pre-season.]]>
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2013/...ry-hearing

Assistant manager Mauricio Taricco has had his suspension lifted.

What's it all about anyway? Are they still citing disputes over budgets or have any more facts come to light?

They're cutting it fine whichever way you look at it. They're not leaving Poyet or a new manager much time for pre-season.]]> http://www.new-606.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=23375 Wed, 19 Jun 2013 16:27:44 +0100 http://www.new-606.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=23375
We were supposed to be close to signing him if Twitter was to be believed but obviously that fell through. It's certainly true that we need a striker.

According to Jennings David Flitcroft has had his eye on him since he was at Tranmere.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22938995

Thoughts?]]>
We were supposed to be close to signing him if Twitter was to be believed but obviously that fell through. It's certainly true that we need a striker.

According to Jennings David Flitcroft has had his eye on him since he was at Tranmere.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22938995

Thoughts?]]> http://www.new-606.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=23374 Wed, 19 Jun 2013 16:07:45 +0100 http://www.new-606.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=23374 Sat Aug 24 Newcastle United A
Sat Aug 31 Stoke City H
Sat Sep 14 Southampton A
Sat Sep 21 Everton H
Sat Sep 28 Hull City A
Sat Oct 5 Tottenham Hotspur A
Sat Oct 19 Manchester City H
Sat Oct 26 Swansea City A
Sat Nov 2 Aston Villa H
Sat Nov 9 Norwich City A
Sat Nov 23 Chelsea H
Sat Nov 30 Fulham H
Tue Dec 3 Crystal Palace A
Sat Dec 7 Liverpool A
Sat Dec 14 Sunderland H
Sat Dec 21 Manchester United A
Thu Dec 26 Arsenal H
Sat Dec 28 West Bromwich Albion H
Wed Jan 1 Fulham A
Sat Jan 4 F.A. Cup 3
Sat Jan 11 Cardiff City A
Sat Jan 18 Newcastle United H
Sat Jan 25 F.A. Cup 4
Wed Jan 29 Chelsea A
Sat Feb 1 Swansea City H
Sat Feb 8 Aston Villa A
Tue Feb 11 Norwich City H
Sat Feb 15 F.A. Cup 5
Sat Feb 22 Southampton H
Sat Mar 1 Everton A
Sun Mar 2 Capital One Cup Final
Sat Mar 8 Hull City H
Sat Mar 15 Stoke City A
Sat Mar 22 Manchester United H
Sat Mar 29 Sunderland A
Sat Apr 5 Liverpool H
Sat Apr 12 Arsenal A
Sat Apr 19 Crystal Palace H
Sat Apr 26 West Bromwich Albion A
Sat May 3 Tottenham Hotspur H
Sun May 11 Manchester City A

So you've got one of the new boy's to play first and at home. Good start, eh?

http://www.whufc.com/articles/20130619/c...84_3212922]]> Sat Aug 24 Newcastle United A
Sat Aug 31 Stoke City H
Sat Sep 14 Southampton A
Sat Sep 21 Everton H
Sat Sep 28 Hull City A
Sat Oct 5 Tottenham Hotspur A
Sat Oct 19 Manchester City H
Sat Oct 26 Swansea City A
Sat Nov 2 Aston Villa H
Sat Nov 9 Norwich City A
Sat Nov 23 Chelsea H
Sat Nov 30 Fulham H
Tue Dec 3 Crystal Palace A
Sat Dec 7 Liverpool A
Sat Dec 14 Sunderland H
Sat Dec 21 Manchester United A
Thu Dec 26 Arsenal H
Sat Dec 28 West Bromwich Albion H
Wed Jan 1 Fulham A
Sat Jan 4 F.A. Cup 3
Sat Jan 11 Cardiff City A
Sat Jan 18 Newcastle United H
Sat Jan 25 F.A. Cup 4
Wed Jan 29 Chelsea A
Sat Feb 1 Swansea City H
Sat Feb 8 Aston Villa A
Tue Feb 11 Norwich City H
Sat Feb 15 F.A. Cup 5
Sat Feb 22 Southampton H
Sat Mar 1 Everton A
Sun Mar 2 Capital One Cup Final
Sat Mar 8 Hull City H
Sat Mar 15 Stoke City A
Sat Mar 22 Manchester United H
Sat Mar 29 Sunderland A
Sat Apr 5 Liverpool H
Sat Apr 12 Arsenal A
Sat Apr 19 Crystal Palace H
Sat Apr 26 West Bromwich Albion A
Sat May 3 Tottenham Hotspur H
Sun May 11 Manchester City A

So you've got one of the new boy's to play first and at home. Good start, eh?

http://www.whufc.com/articles/20130619/c...84_3212922]]> http://www.new-606.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=23373 Wed, 19 Jun 2013 14:41:46 +0100 http://www.new-606.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=23373 The proposal is from a group of six wealthy businessmen and includes a draft Creditors' Voluntary Arrangement to help the Tynecastle club out of administration.

Administrators Valentas UAB of Ukio Bankas in Lithuania have indicated they would accept the CVA.

The consortium behind the bid wish to remain anonymous at this stage, but are fronted by Edinburgh businessmen Stephen Paterson and Fraser Kerr of Haines Watts accountants.

Looks like worthin etc might have to put their champagne on ice.

Would love it if they were saved and remained in the top flight.

]]> The proposal is from a group of six wealthy businessmen and includes a draft Creditors' Voluntary Arrangement to help the Tynecastle club out of administration.

Administrators Valentas UAB of Ukio Bankas in Lithuania have indicated they would accept the CVA.

The consortium behind the bid wish to remain anonymous at this stage, but are fronted by Edinburgh businessmen Stephen Paterson and Fraser Kerr of Haines Watts accountants.

Looks like worthin etc might have to put their champagne on ice.

Would love it if they were saved and remained in the top flight.

]]> http://www.new-606.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=23372 Wed, 19 Jun 2013 13:44:53 +0100 http://www.new-606.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=23372
With Mourhino at the helm, it's unlikely that Chelsea will suffer a diabolical November after a very good start as they have done in recent years, and there should be some stability there, although the football might be more on the boring side.

For me there are still big questions marks over Mourhino and I'm not going to get drawn in to the furore of, he was successful last time and will repeat what he did then. The squad is more established now with less scope for wholesale changes, the football has to be more entertaining and some established players are on the wane etc, etc.

A truly great manager gains his reputation over at least several years at the same club and Mourhino has never done that. He inherited a very strong Inter side when he took over, and yes he improved them, but they were very good when he arrived and had won Serie A for the past few seasons. At Real, he didn't break Barca's monopoly and they easily won La Liga again this season. Mourhino cut his losses there, ran off and blamed the media, as opposed to admitting he just couldn't get the upper hand against a better squad and a very well run club.

Quick analysis of the Mourhino years and post Mourhino years, based on major trophies won (a big priority at Chelsea FC).

Mourhino major trophies won at Chelsea: 2 PL's (not exciting football) and 1 FA cup. The Carling cup isn't included as most teams play a weakened side, although Mourhino didn't and often played his strongest 11. Liverpool, managed by Benitez regularly got the better of Mourhino and Chelsea during those years in the CL with a much smaller budget and a weaker squad.

Post Mourhino: 1 PL - Ancelotti and Wilkins. I mention Wilkins, as I don't think Ancelotti could have done it without his input and he struggled when Wilkins was sacked. Also, Chelsea were well on course to win the PL again for a second year running when Wilkins was unceremoniously sacked for no apparent reason. It's worth mentioning that the football they were playing was quick, exciting and entertaining.

3 FA cups - Hiddink, Ancelotti / Wilkins and Di Matteo

1 Champions league - Di Matteo (The big one!)

1 Europa league - Benitez.

That's twice as many major trophies won without Mourhino compared to when he was manager.

It's nothing personal, but those are the facts. Many Chelsea fans like Mourhino because of the effort he made for them, throwing his PL medals into the crowd for example. Lampard is a huge fan of his, at least partly because he was never dropped by Mourhino compared to later managers in my opinion.

Things will be very different this time around though in my opinion, and fans need to take a step back, get real and understand that Chelsea play a different and more exciting style of football now, and the owner and board won't accept two steps back to overly defensive, deep, negative football again. It's just not Chelsea FC. For me, Mourhino has everything still to prove.

Plus, during his last tenure he was a big unknown in England, and I think that teams, the media and opposition managers were a bit startled by his brash, exhibitionist approach. There won't be any surprise this time around however, and the media and the public will have very little time for any headline grabbing antics and cheap tricks, which will be seen as same old, same old, off you go back to Italy.

Come on the Chels'!]]>
With Mourhino at the helm, it's unlikely that Chelsea will suffer a diabolical November after a very good start as they have done in recent years, and there should be some stability there, although the football might be more on the boring side.

For me there are still big questions marks over Mourhino and I'm not going to get drawn in to the furore of, he was successful last time and will repeat what he did then. The squad is more established now with less scope for wholesale changes, the football has to be more entertaining and some established players are on the wane etc, etc.

A truly great manager gains his reputation over at least several years at the same club and Mourhino has never done that. He inherited a very strong Inter side when he took over, and yes he improved them, but they were very good when he arrived and had won Serie A for the past few seasons. At Real, he didn't break Barca's monopoly and they easily won La Liga again this season. Mourhino cut his losses there, ran off and blamed the media, as opposed to admitting he just couldn't get the upper hand against a better squad and a very well run club.

Quick analysis of the Mourhino years and post Mourhino years, based on major trophies won (a big priority at Chelsea FC).

Mourhino major trophies won at Chelsea: 2 PL's (not exciting football) and 1 FA cup. The Carling cup isn't included as most teams play a weakened side, although Mourhino didn't and often played his strongest 11. Liverpool, managed by Benitez regularly got the better of Mourhino and Chelsea during those years in the CL with a much smaller budget and a weaker squad.

Post Mourhino: 1 PL - Ancelotti and Wilkins. I mention Wilkins, as I don't think Ancelotti could have done it without his input and he struggled when Wilkins was sacked. Also, Chelsea were well on course to win the PL again for a second year running when Wilkins was unceremoniously sacked for no apparent reason. It's worth mentioning that the football they were playing was quick, exciting and entertaining.

3 FA cups - Hiddink, Ancelotti / Wilkins and Di Matteo

1 Champions league - Di Matteo (The big one!)

1 Europa league - Benitez.

That's twice as many major trophies won without Mourhino compared to when he was manager.

It's nothing personal, but those are the facts. Many Chelsea fans like Mourhino because of the effort he made for them, throwing his PL medals into the crowd for example. Lampard is a huge fan of his, at least partly because he was never dropped by Mourhino compared to later managers in my opinion.

Things will be very different this time around though in my opinion, and fans need to take a step back, get real and understand that Chelsea play a different and more exciting style of football now, and the owner and board won't accept two steps back to overly defensive, deep, negative football again. It's just not Chelsea FC. For me, Mourhino has everything still to prove.

Plus, during his last tenure he was a big unknown in England, and I think that teams, the media and opposition managers were a bit startled by his brash, exhibitionist approach. There won't be any surprise this time around however, and the media and the public will have very little time for any headline grabbing antics and cheap tricks, which will be seen as same old, same old, off you go back to Italy.

Come on the Chels'!]]> http://www.new-606.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=23371 Wed, 19 Jun 2013 13:28:07 +0100 http://www.new-606.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=23371 Bury and Rochdale first 2 away games - Bloody M62 twice !!! and the first Sunday game at the Proact on Dec 29th.
As we will be top of the league by then I can forsee a good Christmas this year.]]> Bury and Rochdale first 2 away games - Bloody M62 twice !!! and the first Sunday game at the Proact on Dec 29th.
As we will be top of the league by then I can forsee a good Christmas this year.]]> http://www.new-606.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=23370 Wed, 19 Jun 2013 12:31:11 +0100 http://www.new-606.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=23370 The Fixtures for Season 2013-2014 have been announced today, 19th June 2013.

AVFC - Villa to kick off new campaign with trip to Arsenal

Full List of fixtures here : AVFC - Fixtures 2013-2014

]]> The Fixtures for Season 2013-2014 have been announced today, 19th June 2013.

AVFC - Villa to kick off new campaign with trip to Arsenal

Full List of fixtures here : AVFC - Fixtures 2013-2014

]]> http://www.new-606.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=23369 Wed, 19 Jun 2013 11:09:39 +0100 http://www.new-606.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=23369
Q2. What first appeared in Britain on 18th July 2000?

Q3. Mixed Up OWLS - ROSILY LAZY ABSTRUSE CROOKS

Q4. Who were Wednesday playing next after the "Save Our Owls" campaign was launched in 1975?

Q5. Which chart topping artist signed an autograph on Madsteve's leg?

Q6. Who were Huddersfield Town playing on Madsteve's wedding day?

Q7. Which Premier League team has kept a clean sheet on the opening day on each of the last four seasons?

Q8. Who is the odd one out and why? Bobby Brown, Derek Bell, Darren Potter, Reda Johnson, John Jordan, Mark Smith

Usual Rules Apply

I am away for a few days from tomorrow so I will probably be able to update less often than usual.]]>
Q2. What first appeared in Britain on 18th July 2000?

Q3. Mixed Up OWLS - ROSILY LAZY ABSTRUSE CROOKS

Q4. Who were Wednesday playing next after the "Save Our Owls" campaign was launched in 1975?

Q5. Which chart topping artist signed an autograph on Madsteve's leg?

Q6. Who were Huddersfield Town playing on Madsteve's wedding day?

Q7. Which Premier League team has kept a clean sheet on the opening day on each of the last four seasons?

Q8. Who is the odd one out and why? Bobby Brown, Derek Bell, Darren Potter, Reda Johnson, John Jordan, Mark Smith

Usual Rules Apply

I am away for a few days from tomorrow so I will probably be able to update less often than usual.]]> http://www.new-606.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=23368 Wed, 19 Jun 2013 10:25:32 +0100 http://www.new-606.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=23368

The acrimonious debate continues about whether Rangers FC is a new club or not.

BBC Scotland is just the latest to feel the hot wrath of some angry Rangers fans railing at its editorial stance.

In fact, those Rangers fans have scored a notable victory in having a complaint to the Editorial Standards Committee about BBC Scotland upheld.

At least two supporters objected to the BBC in Glasgow occasionally referring to Rangers in terms of "old club" and "new club", and their complaint was upheld.

What was thrown out was the daft accusation, frequently cited among some Rangers cyber zealots, that the BBC was biased against the club.

My point here is not to defend BBC Scotland. In this complex Rangers saga, it has become obvious to me, speaking to various insolvency practitioners, that "new club" or "same club" Rangers is a highly subjective issue. I've heard the entire gamut of interpretations on it.

Where Rangers struggle to be angry or insulted by the suggestion that their organisation is a "new club" is in this context: at least four Rangers principals, men who have been lauded by supporters, have expressed just such a view of Rangers as a new club.

First, Charles Green. Prior to Rangers' descent into liquidation last year, Green was aghast at the attitude of Dave King, a long-standing Rangers director, who had urged that a CVA be voted down by the club's 276 creditors.

Incredulous at this, Green went on television and said: "What he [King] is suggesting is that, rather than get a CVA through that retains all the history and tradition, that instead we should vote against it and go down the newco route. I mean…why would a true Rangers fan suggest that?"

In this, the view of Green, the man to whom many Rangers fans swooned, appears none too different to that of BBC Scotland and others.

Arguably, no Rangers figure in this debate finds himself in a more excruciating position than James Traynor, the club's Director of Communication.

Time and space here doesn't allow for the sheer number of times that Traynor, in his previous role as a journalist, emphatically pronounced Rangers to be a new club once liquidation became a reality. Yet he has the temerity now to argue the complete opposite.

Of the numerous times Traynor weighed in on this subject, just two quotes here will have to suffice.

With liquidation looming, Traynor wrote in the Daily Record: "Some Rangers fans believe the club's history, which would end with liquidation, must be protected. But any newco should make it clear that a new beginning means exactly that: a new club open to all from the very beginning."

Later on, with the Rangers CVA being rejected, Traynor wrote: "Rangers FC as we know them are dead." Caustically, he added: "No matter how Charles Green attempts to dress it up, a newco equals a new club. When the CVA was thrown out, Rangers as we know them died."

Reading this type of stuff, I would urge Rangers to exercise supreme caution in railing against anyone who dares to call their club a new club; none other than their own Director of Communication has made his view perfectly clear on the subject.

Many a Rangers fan expressed the view that the club died with the descent into liquidation. Typical of this was Ibrox debenture holder Stewart Boal who, having stumbled out of the CVA meeting of June 2012, was quoted by Richard Wilson in The Herald as saying: "We're in shock. The club is gone. We've got to start again and move on."

Wilson, a fine reporter, himself wrote of that nine-minute creditors' meeting where the CVA was rejected: "In those few minutes 140 years of history had been rubbed out."

I could go on and on here. Richard Gough, one of Rangers' greatest ever captains, wrote in a newspaper column: "The club I gave blood, sweat and tears for is dead."

Walter Smith, one of the greatest figures in Rangers' history, and now the club's chairman, said of Green's consortium taking over: "I wish the new Rangers Football Club every good fortune."

This is a painful subject. Many Rangers fans are agonised at the thought of their club being new - they simply rule it out. "It's the company, not the club," became the mantra. Other Rangers observers - like me - find it hard to escape the view that the current club is a new club.

Rangers FC itself should think twice about laying into BBC Scotland or anyone else over this old club/new club debate. The more so when its own oral history on the subject is so weak.

]]>

The acrimonious debate continues about whether Rangers FC is a new club or not.

BBC Scotland is just the latest to feel the hot wrath of some angry Rangers fans railing at its editorial stance.

In fact, those Rangers fans have scored a notable victory in having a complaint to the Editorial Standards Committee about BBC Scotland upheld.

At least two supporters objected to the BBC in Glasgow occasionally referring to Rangers in terms of "old club" and "new club", and their complaint was upheld.

What was thrown out was the daft accusation, frequently cited among some Rangers cyber zealots, that the BBC was biased against the club.

My point here is not to defend BBC Scotland. In this complex Rangers saga, it has become obvious to me, speaking to various insolvency practitioners, that "new club" or "same club" Rangers is a highly subjective issue. I've heard the entire gamut of interpretations on it.

Where Rangers struggle to be angry or insulted by the suggestion that their organisation is a "new club" is in this context: at least four Rangers principals, men who have been lauded by supporters, have expressed just such a view of Rangers as a new club.

First, Charles Green. Prior to Rangers' descent into liquidation last year, Green was aghast at the attitude of Dave King, a long-standing Rangers director, who had urged that a CVA be voted down by the club's 276 creditors.

Incredulous at this, Green went on television and said: "What he [King] is suggesting is that, rather than get a CVA through that retains all the history and tradition, that instead we should vote against it and go down the newco route. I mean…why would a true Rangers fan suggest that?"

In this, the view of Green, the man to whom many Rangers fans swooned, appears none too different to that of BBC Scotland and others.

Arguably, no Rangers figure in this debate finds himself in a more excruciating position than James Traynor, the club's Director of Communication.

Time and space here doesn't allow for the sheer number of times that Traynor, in his previous role as a journalist, emphatically pronounced Rangers to be a new club once liquidation became a reality. Yet he has the temerity now to argue the complete opposite.

Of the numerous times Traynor weighed in on this subject, just two quotes here will have to suffice.

With liquidation looming, Traynor wrote in the Daily Record: "Some Rangers fans believe the club's history, which would end with liquidation, must be protected. But any newco should make it clear that a new beginning means exactly that: a new club open to all from the very beginning."

Later on, with the Rangers CVA being rejected, Traynor wrote: "Rangers FC as we know them are dead." Caustically, he added: "No matter how Charles Green attempts to dress it up, a newco equals a new club. When the CVA was thrown out, Rangers as we know them died."

Reading this type of stuff, I would urge Rangers to exercise supreme caution in railing against anyone who dares to call their club a new club; none other than their own Director of Communication has made his view perfectly clear on the subject.

Many a Rangers fan expressed the view that the club died with the descent into liquidation. Typical of this was Ibrox debenture holder Stewart Boal who, having stumbled out of the CVA meeting of June 2012, was quoted by Richard Wilson in The Herald as saying: "We're in shock. The club is gone. We've got to start again and move on."

Wilson, a fine reporter, himself wrote of that nine-minute creditors' meeting where the CVA was rejected: "In those few minutes 140 years of history had been rubbed out."

I could go on and on here. Richard Gough, one of Rangers' greatest ever captains, wrote in a newspaper column: "The club I gave blood, sweat and tears for is dead."

Walter Smith, one of the greatest figures in Rangers' history, and now the club's chairman, said of Green's consortium taking over: "I wish the new Rangers Football Club every good fortune."

This is a painful subject. Many Rangers fans are agonised at the thought of their club being new - they simply rule it out. "It's the company, not the club," became the mantra. Other Rangers observers - like me - find it hard to escape the view that the current club is a new club.

Rangers FC itself should think twice about laying into BBC Scotland or anyone else over this old club/new club debate. The more so when its own oral history on the subject is so weak.

]]> http://www.new-606.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=23367 Wed, 19 Jun 2013 06:04:24 +0100 http://www.new-606.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=23367 http://www.new-606.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=23366 Tue, 18 Jun 2013 18:21:24 +0100 http://www.new-606.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=23366 The BBC has concluded its investigation into complaints regarding its coverage of matters pertaining to Rangers FC.

From the website : Rangers FC - Statement On BBC

There is a PDF of the BBC findings linked to the Rangers FC article.

I have copied the part covering Rangers into the attached Notepad (including the page numbers, but not as part of the text !!!).

From the PDF :

The Committee agreed that there were no grounds on which to uphold the complaint of bias and it wished to reiterate its view that it had seen no evidence which would lead it to conclude that there had been any breach of the Impartiality Guidelines.

Finding: Upheld with regard to Accuracy. Not upheld with regard to Impartiality.


Note. There is a formatting cock-up affecting the attachment, all " and ' are displayed as little boxes with letters in !!!

Note 2. The formatting cock-up has screwed my formatting too, spreading the sentences across the page instead of using word-wrap !!!


  Rangers-BBC-Online.txt (Size: 34.17 KB / Downloads: 7) ]]> The BBC has concluded its investigation into complaints regarding its coverage of matters pertaining to Rangers FC.

From the website : Rangers FC - Statement On BBC

There is a PDF of the BBC findings linked to the Rangers FC article.

I have copied the part covering Rangers into the attached Notepad (including the page numbers, but not as part of the text !!!).

From the PDF :

The Committee agreed that there were no grounds on which to uphold the complaint of bias and it wished to reiterate its view that it had seen no evidence which would lead it to conclude that there had been any breach of the Impartiality Guidelines.

Finding: Upheld with regard to Accuracy. Not upheld with regard to Impartiality.


Note. There is a formatting cock-up affecting the attachment, all " and ' are displayed as little boxes with letters in !!!

Note 2. The formatting cock-up has screwed my formatting too, spreading the sentences across the page instead of using word-wrap !!!


  Rangers-BBC-Online.txt (Size: 34.17 KB / Downloads: 7) ]]> http://www.new-606.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=23365 Tue, 18 Jun 2013 16:54:23 +0100 http://www.new-606.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=23365


Rangers fan here to talk about everyones favourite team.]]>


Rangers fan here to talk about everyones favourite team.]]> http://www.new-606.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=23364 Tue, 18 Jun 2013 14:52:27 +0100 http://www.new-606.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=23364 Full details on WBA website.]]> Full details on WBA website.]]> http://www.new-606.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=23363 Tue, 18 Jun 2013 14:29:41 +0100 http://www.new-606.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=23363
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footbal...handa.html

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/t...a-1958794?

Sources close to Yan Dhanda are saying that he will move to Liverpool for £750,000 just as Sinclair did. So, for all our financial investment to gain a Category 1 Academy and "protect" our best prospects from being poached, it appears that we still have little or no protection from the bloated vultures of London and the North West, and can only accept whatever small change they fling at us for wonder kids that we've discovered and developed. This all seems to be taking place with the tacit blessing of the FA, who seem to believe (as if we didn't already know) that England internationals should exclusively be drawn from a select five or six clubs, and any talented youth players should automatically be funnelled into those clubs.

So, as we continue to pour three million pounds a season into our youth set-up, the awkward question that occurs is: are we being conned?]]>
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footbal...handa.html

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/t...a-1958794?

Sources close to Yan Dhanda are saying that he will move to Liverpool for £750,000 just as Sinclair did. So, for all our financial investment to gain a Category 1 Academy and "protect" our best prospects from being poached, it appears that we still have little or no protection from the bloated vultures of London and the North West, and can only accept whatever small change they fling at us for wonder kids that we've discovered and developed. This all seems to be taking place with the tacit blessing of the FA, who seem to believe (as if we didn't already know) that England internationals should exclusively be drawn from a select five or six clubs, and any talented youth players should automatically be funnelled into those clubs.

So, as we continue to pour three million pounds a season into our youth set-up, the awkward question that occurs is: are we being conned?]]> http://www.new-606.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=23362 Tue, 18 Jun 2013 14:29:24 +0100 http://www.new-606.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=23362 To celebrate the leagues 125th anniversary, the original members of the Football League will be meeting each other on the opening day of the season, hence we are at home to Wolverhampton Wanderers ]]> To celebrate the leagues 125th anniversary, the original members of the Football League will be meeting each other on the opening day of the season, hence we are at home to Wolverhampton Wanderers ]]> http://www.new-606.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=23361 Tue, 18 Jun 2013 14:02:16 +0100 http://www.new-606.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=23361
Parkhead defender Efe Ambrose, meanwhile, is a £4million target for Besiktas. The Turkish giants placed the Nigerian under scrutiny during the Confederations Cup triumph over Tahiti.


£4M?
After watching that dross last night?!!

Take their hand off. ]]>
Parkhead defender Efe Ambrose, meanwhile, is a £4million target for Besiktas. The Turkish giants placed the Nigerian under scrutiny during the Confederations Cup triumph over Tahiti.


£4M?
After watching that dross last night?!!

Take their hand off. ]]> http://www.new-606.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=23360 Tue, 18 Jun 2013 11:35:24 +0100 http://www.new-606.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=23360 http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/sport/fo...n-4389514?]]> http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/sport/fo...n-4389514?]]> http://www.new-606.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=23359 Tue, 18 Jun 2013 08:27:35 +0100 http://www.new-606.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=23359

http://www.newsnow.co.uk/A/651580333?-11200:789]]>

http://www.newsnow.co.uk/A/651580333?-11200:789]]> http://www.new-606.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=23358 Tue, 18 Jun 2013 02:13:38 +0100 http://www.new-606.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=23358
We all need them, otherwise we'd be flattened by an errant Ford Focus.

OK, so there has been a fair bit of chat about the new buzz word emanating from Town; pathways. But what we do we all feel about this system?

Traditionally (IMO) we have never produced enough quality youngsters to really support building our future on this approach. I think we can all count on one hand the number of really good home grown products over the last 10-20 years that have gone onto bigger and better careers after Town.

There are links to this, in that we need to create this talent to sell it on. There are hints of Crewe's policy and to an extent, the West Ham of recent times.

I am an admirer of the ethics behind the idea, but I have real doubts as to whether we can sustain the approach when trying to balance our survival and growth as a Championship club. Rarely do clubs that grow their own talent, & sell it on, survive consistently at a set level.

With the arrival of the FFP rules, the pathways approach will become more commonplace, (and it surely will have benefits for the national game in the decades to come?) but for next 5 years at least I feel we have to get used to the fact that Town will never be above the lower echelons of the Championship due to this approach. We simply do not have the fanbase to bolster the finances, so yes selling on players does make sense.

But have we got the right talent pipeline? Historically some able youngsters have slipped through our scouting nets, so what has changed?

As much as I detest Peterborough, their transfer dealings with Dagenham have been pretty damn good. Picking off their talent, guiding them through a higher level of ability and selling them on. Dwight Gayle is the next mooted to go.

Can we establish links with local clubs, to almost become feeder clubs to us?

Do we have the right approach to this critical change that is hitting the Football League?

What do you think is the right approach for Town? Buy and push for a consistent challenge up the table with fiances sailing close to the wind or 'grow your own' then sell off the jewels but languish in the lower places being financially stable?

I'm a little torn. I want us to be successful but I also want HTAFC to be in existence in a further 100 years. The club's approach is clear, and appears to be at the front of the wave.

What do you think?]]>
We all need them, otherwise we'd be flattened by an errant Ford Focus.

OK, so there has been a fair bit of chat about the new buzz word emanating from Town; pathways. But what we do we all feel about this system?

Traditionally (IMO) we have never produced enough quality youngsters to really support building our future on this approach. I think we can all count on one hand the number of really good home grown products over the last 10-20 years that have gone onto bigger and better careers after Town.

There are links to this, in that we need to create this talent to sell it on. There are hints of Crewe's policy and to an extent, the West Ham of recent times.

I am an admirer of the ethics behind the idea, but I have real doubts as to whether we can sustain the approach when trying to balance our survival and growth as a Championship club. Rarely do clubs that grow their own talent, & sell it on, survive consistently at a set level.

With the arrival of the FFP rules, the pathways approach will become more commonplace, (and it surely will have benefits for the national game in the decades to come?) but for next 5 years at least I feel we have to get used to the fact that Town will never be above the lower echelons of the Championship due to this approach. We simply do not have the fanbase to bolster the finances, so yes selling on players does make sense.

But have we got the right talent pipeline? Historically some able youngsters have slipped through our scouting nets, so what has changed?

As much as I detest Peterborough, their transfer dealings with Dagenham have been pretty damn good. Picking off their talent, guiding them through a higher level of ability and selling them on. Dwight Gayle is the next mooted to go.

Can we establish links with local clubs, to almost become feeder clubs to us?

Do we have the right approach to this critical change that is hitting the Football League?

What do you think is the right approach for Town? Buy and push for a consistent challenge up the table with fiances sailing close to the wind or 'grow your own' then sell off the jewels but languish in the lower places being financially stable?

I'm a little torn. I want us to be successful but I also want HTAFC to be in existence in a further 100 years. The club's approach is clear, and appears to be at the front of the wave.

What do you think?]]>