By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Ignoring the two cup games, at home we have scored in the first 15 minutes against Braintree and Woking and away against Eastleigh, Aldershot and Boston. Solihull are the only team to have scored against us in the league at home in the first 30 minutes. Until Barnet, York were the only team to score against us away in the first 15 minutes. Eastleigh scored in the first 30 minutes away.
I don't think there is much of a difference in the overall quality of teams we have played home and away given how close it is in mid-table.
The idea that we tend give away early goals and are forced to chase the game is a bit of myth. In the 15 league games where there has been a goal we have scored first in nine (four at home and five away). A better point would be that when we take the lead we could do more to extend the lead. Having said that, if we score first we win, apart from Ebbsfleet. We also score a lot of goals in the last 15 minutes compared to our opponents in the league.
Things could change going forward as the sample size is still quite small, so a few more Barnets and Bromleys would change the picture.
The Woking manager has said that he came here to attack rather than sit back and now thinks that was a mistake. He also thinks their tactics forced us to play longer more than we normally do.
I would imagine that most teams, unless they are confident in their own playing style and abilities, are going to learn from this and the previous home games that the way to get something here is to frustrate us and not let us play like we did on Saturday. I anticipate that this is what will happen, so getting the first goal will be essential to get the opposition to come out of defence more. I would say the most important thing for the management to do is find a way to get through organised defences of teams whose primary object is obviously to get something from the game and not to give us an entertaining afternoon. Not every team is going to be as open and 'tired' (to quote their manager) as Woking were. It is not as if this is a new problem as it was the case under Parkin's first spell and Hill if I remember correctly.
Despite the sound issues at the start it was a very constructive meeting. Is is possible for the slides to be made available as they were not visible online?
This must be the third option that would blow the others out of the water mentioned by Richard Knight during the Oxford game.
This looks like an investment into the club as a community asset and getting it to run on a sustainable basis rather than pumping money in to get up the leagues. This sits well with me and what I have read online about him from the various links suggests that the statement is not just hot air. Hopefully they put some people in to sort the organisation of the club out.
Enjoyable day out and good performance but they played onto our hands by not pressurising the back 4 and the keeper. They allowed us so much time unlike other teams. Nice of the opposition goalkeeper to gift us a goal for a change. Second goal was a lovely move with first time passes.
I gave my proxy to the Trust and in the survey reluctantly voted in favour of all motions apart from the audit one. I left it as late as possible before leaving for the Barnet game in case something else came up.
I am not impressed at the chairman's remarks mentioned above.
I hope both the club and Trust boards put every effort into getting the golden share idea into discussions with investors. That would give me some comfort for voting away my say.
We now have to hope that the investors are genuine and professional.
Just listened to Jim's interview. I can't believe he thought we deserved to win. We could barely pass to one another and they always seemed to win the ball off us. A large proportion of the game was around our box because they put us under pressure as we tried to pass it out. We had a bit of momentum after Uchegbulam came on but it didn't last long enough. A pretty easy game for their keeper, especially the first half, when the only thing he really had to do was pick the ball out of the net after our unexpected goal.
I hope we do better on Tuesday as it was pretty frustrating today. Their first goal was just ridiculous.
I find myself with the same dilemma as you. I am not sure what to do and might abstain. I am hoping the forum tomorrow will give more clarity even if it is unwelcome clarity.
There should have been a more open debate months ago with time to discuss possible contingencies, particularly around the ground.
I can't remember the last time we had an election for trust board members. I presume this is because not enough people put themselves forward to justify an election so the same people stay on. I know that other trusts have people putting forward manifestos, holding interviews and hustings so members can judge whose vision matches their own.
This lack of public debate around the membership of the Trust Board has been a problem. There are posters on here with many different views but they only have influence within the Trust if they or others representing their views are on the inside. I don't really know what the board members thought individually about the way forward for the club in the last few years because there has been no need for them to put their views out there as individuals to get votes.
If we end up sold to a rich investor then the Trust will simply become a supporter group with limited if any influence over club direction, the same as at most other clubs. It would not be correct to say there would be no point in the Trust, but its role could be more like the one at Charlton rather than an organisation with voting power as now.
I seem to remember at the June 2021 EGM that the Trust's shares were split according to the ratio of members voting for and against. Col was asked if he could do this by a trust member in the room and he agreed. Perhaps there has been further advice since then or it was not the same sort of vote.
Is the EGM going to be based on 75% of people in the room or acting as proxies or will the shareholding each person holds count. They added up the shareholdings in June 2021. Is it different this time?
On a separate matter, if it can be streamed will it also be recorded?
He is also going to be playing in a much better atmosphere on and off the pitch in that the team are doing the best they can in the circumstances and the fans are behind them. That has got to give him a better chance of doing well compared to what it was like when he was here before.
I looked at the video of the highlights (the incident is at 4:10 onwards) and my immediate thought was that he was lucky not to smash his head into the top of the crush barrier in front of the fans after trying to hurdle the advertising hoarding frame. That could have been even worse given the pace he was going. Looks like he was pushed a bit as well.
Important to note from that piece that Exeter were bailed out to a large extent by a two games against Manchester United in 2005 including a draw at Old Trafford. Prior to that they were in a very bad state financially due to very dodgy owners. They also went into admin and paid back 7.1p in the pound, which was another big factor in clearing their debts.
If you look at the accounts of our competitors they are all in debt supported by their owners or shareholders with one or two exceptions (and even then I am not sure). However, to be honest as a non-accountant I find it difficult to interpret exactly what is going on with subsidies from 'outside' sources. Some club accounts are very limited in detail as well because they are small companies.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
