| Walsall home - match thread 21:12 - Apr 5 with 31943 views | EllDale |
Before anything else is discussed could someone confirm that the kick-off is 3.00pm please?
The official site states this but I’m sure that I read somewhere that it had been brought forward to 2.00pm?
Thanks. |  | | |  |
| Walsall home - match thread on 18:01 - Apr 8 with 2743 views | TVOS1907 |
| Walsall home - match thread on 17:58 - Apr 8 by NigelWatson |
Great analysis and a fine rebuttal. |
Cheers. |  |
| When I was your age, I used to enjoy the odd game of tennis. Or was it golf? |
| |
| Walsall home - match thread on 18:07 - Apr 8 with 2709 views | NigelWatson |
Do you want me to dig out all your pro-Bentley and pro-Coleman ramblings?
Gerrit forward | | | |
| Walsall home - match thread on 18:11 - Apr 8 with 2697 views | D_Alien |
| Walsall home - match thread on 18:07 - Apr 8 by NigelWatson |
Do you want me to dig out all your pro-Bentley and pro-Coleman ramblings?
Gerrit forward |
I can dig out the posts where i said i'd never want to see someone who played the style of football Coleman had us playing managing Dale ever again, if you like?
I'm willing to give any manager the benefit of the doubt (without anti-Scouse prejudice) until it becomes clear their way isn't working for us
So go ahead, yeah, find those posts where i was giving them a chance to succeed [Post edited 8 Apr 2023 18:12]
|  |
| |
| Walsall home - match thread on 18:12 - Apr 8 with 2688 views | kel |
| Walsall home - match thread on 17:09 - Apr 8 by NigelWatson |
Hmm, let's think, what phrases do the 'gerrit forward', direct-football mob use on here:
1. play on the front foot
2. The arsing about instead of getting a cross
3. Drop the tippy tappy that led to numerous scares
And that's just on one page of one thread! The bottom line is that the "gerrit forward" mob were Bentley's biggest supporters, and before that, they were Coleman fans, because both Bentley and Coleman played a very direct brand of football, which they liked. They also couldn't wait to get shot of the best manager that we ever had in Keith Hill because his progressive, possession-based method frustrated them.
Gerrit forward! [Post edited 8 Apr 2023 17:10]
|
IT’S ALL A CONSPIRACY AND ONLY YOU KNOW THE TRUTH.
I’m expecting you to say “do your own research” anytime now… |  | | |
| Walsall home - match thread on 18:33 - Apr 8 with 2628 views | foreverhopefulDale |
| Walsall home - match thread on 17:09 - Apr 8 by RAFCBLUE |
"Share the pain" is a good way to look at the future of football DA given the nonsense economics and financials of football in the EFL.
In the Chairman's Letter open to shareholders - dated 28 October 2022 so before the EGM vote for new shares - it set out a really helpful appendix that shows the losses the club makes without "one-offs" (being transfer fees and cup runs) over the previous 5 seasons - so covering the current and previous two chairman and spells in League 1 and League 2.
Quoting directly the figures from that letter without "one-offs":
2017/18 (audited): Loss of £1,582,628
2018/19 (audited): Loss of £2,241,135
2019/20 (audited): Loss of £1,272,509
2020/21 (audited): Loss of £1,229,208
2021/22 (unaudited): Loss of £1,536,906
Now we know from the audited accounts just published at Companies House in 2021/22 the actual loss in 2021/22 was £467,356.
So, so much for Alexander Jarvis and his financial projections made in Summer 2022.....
The difference of £1,069,550 in 2021/22 must therefore be money from "one-offs" and the accounts refer to initial transfer fees (Humphrys, Rathbone, Beesley and Morley) and money from the FA Cup run which included a game on ITV.
This season the transfer market is significantly depressed - I can't think of a decent transfer fee paid by a Premier League or Championship club to either a League 1 League 2 club or (other than Wrexham) any club spraying significant money around.
The data on transfermarkt has numerous references to "free" or "loan" which isn't how the lower division model works when you only receive 8% of EFL funds in League 2 vs 80% of EFL funds going to the Championship.
The conclusion to draw is that those Championship clubs are not passing that money down any longer. Blackpool and Wigan who a season ago lifted a Dale player for a fee are about to be relegated back to League 1.
Reading have been punished for financial breaches. Sheffield United are under embargo and Birmingham City are the latest Championship club to be under the spotlight because, ironically, of another failed takeover.
Aside from Burnley who are going back to the Premier League most of the Championship is probably technically insolvent.
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/championship/transfers/wettbewerb/GB2
The Morton House narrative in July 2021 was going to be very straightforward. Buy the club from a small number of private shareholders on the cheap to gain 51% control, strip out the ground and then run the club into the ground and walk off into the sunset. It's exactly what happened at Bury and Macclesfield and though terminal for the football clubs concerned it was beneficial for the shareholder - Steve Dale getting back for example a lot more than he bought the club for.
Morton House and those who promoted them had no incentive to fund losses of £1.5m a season. Even the previous CEO and Rochdale fan since 1968, David Bottomley - sold his shares to Morton House - 12,960 as noted openly by the EFL's verdict into goings on. Graham Rawlinson another former director also sold as noted here in Paragraph 32:
https://www.efl.com/contentassets/8a7f1cd734c545c6a9e4d3114325d9c8/221014---efl-
Looking forward if we assumed for a moment a great escape and retaining league status the economic outlook without "one-offs" then it is probably fair to assume a £1.5m loss without "one-offs". Arguably relegation to the National Leage yields probably the same numbers as revenue falls but so can costs.
A different way of framing the question is how does that £1.5m each year get funded? A Board of Directors, the club's shareholders, its supporters or a combination thereof?
The 2021/22 deficit was funded by issuing 396,942 at £2 per share - £0.8m.
The obvious observation to make is that if all current shareholders chose to take up their rights to buy shares then 450,000 at £2.35 would raise £1,057,500. However, how sustainable that is year on year given the current economics of football?
Based on the take-up you'd have to argue that it isn't sustainable at all. Equally in the current environment transfer fees and cup runs are not a viable economic strategy as they are haphazard.
In a "competition" where by the end of 2021/22:
(1) Salford had net liabilities of £11.5m and made a 2021/22 loss of £1.5m
- 10th place in League 2 in 2021/22
(2) Bradford had net liabilities of £1.1m and made a 2021/22 loss of £0.3m
- 14th place in League 2 in 2021/22
(3) Leyton Orient had net liabilities of £10.5m and made a 2021/22 loss of £2.3m - 13th place in League 2 in 2021/22
(4) Wrexham lost £3.4m not getting promoted into League 2.
By contrast, RAFC had made loss of £0.5m and had net assets of £1.8m - 18th place in League 2.
Having written all that I am not sure myself what the answer is.
Football is financially broken and I suspect in the next ten years a number will go to the wall once the US TV companies get their hands on the Premier League rights via Streaming rather than TV.
The lesser teams will have even fewer crumbs to live off then than they do now which is what makes financial sustainability the prize but that is easier said than done. |
"The Morton House narrative in July 2021 was going to be very straightforward. Buy the club from a small number of private shareholders on the cheap to gain 51% control, strip out the ground and then run the club into the ground and walk off into the sunset. It's exactly what happened at Bury and Macclesfield and though terminal for the football clubs concerned it was beneficial for the shareholder - Steve Dale getting back for example a lot more than he bought the club for"
However with Bury they were already millions in debt before Day and Dale took over. It's debatable whether or not they would have lasted longer or not without them two getting involved. It was down fully to their spending beyond their means for at least two decades that they were skint. Trying to blame Day and Dale only let's off the others who were to blame including their so called supporters club Forever Bury, and the supporters who forever were demanding that their club spent beyond their limited means. |  |
| |
| Walsall home - match thread on 18:33 - Apr 8 with 2628 views | TalkingSutty |
| Walsall home - match thread on 17:09 - Apr 8 by RAFCBLUE |
"Share the pain" is a good way to look at the future of football DA given the nonsense economics and financials of football in the EFL.
In the Chairman's Letter open to shareholders - dated 28 October 2022 so before the EGM vote for new shares - it set out a really helpful appendix that shows the losses the club makes without "one-offs" (being transfer fees and cup runs) over the previous 5 seasons - so covering the current and previous two chairman and spells in League 1 and League 2.
Quoting directly the figures from that letter without "one-offs":
2017/18 (audited): Loss of £1,582,628
2018/19 (audited): Loss of £2,241,135
2019/20 (audited): Loss of £1,272,509
2020/21 (audited): Loss of £1,229,208
2021/22 (unaudited): Loss of £1,536,906
Now we know from the audited accounts just published at Companies House in 2021/22 the actual loss in 2021/22 was £467,356.
So, so much for Alexander Jarvis and his financial projections made in Summer 2022.....
The difference of £1,069,550 in 2021/22 must therefore be money from "one-offs" and the accounts refer to initial transfer fees (Humphrys, Rathbone, Beesley and Morley) and money from the FA Cup run which included a game on ITV.
This season the transfer market is significantly depressed - I can't think of a decent transfer fee paid by a Premier League or Championship club to either a League 1 League 2 club or (other than Wrexham) any club spraying significant money around.
The data on transfermarkt has numerous references to "free" or "loan" which isn't how the lower division model works when you only receive 8% of EFL funds in League 2 vs 80% of EFL funds going to the Championship.
The conclusion to draw is that those Championship clubs are not passing that money down any longer. Blackpool and Wigan who a season ago lifted a Dale player for a fee are about to be relegated back to League 1.
Reading have been punished for financial breaches. Sheffield United are under embargo and Birmingham City are the latest Championship club to be under the spotlight because, ironically, of another failed takeover.
Aside from Burnley who are going back to the Premier League most of the Championship is probably technically insolvent.
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/championship/transfers/wettbewerb/GB2
The Morton House narrative in July 2021 was going to be very straightforward. Buy the club from a small number of private shareholders on the cheap to gain 51% control, strip out the ground and then run the club into the ground and walk off into the sunset. It's exactly what happened at Bury and Macclesfield and though terminal for the football clubs concerned it was beneficial for the shareholder - Steve Dale getting back for example a lot more than he bought the club for.
Morton House and those who promoted them had no incentive to fund losses of £1.5m a season. Even the previous CEO and Rochdale fan since 1968, David Bottomley - sold his shares to Morton House - 12,960 as noted openly by the EFL's verdict into goings on. Graham Rawlinson another former director also sold as noted here in Paragraph 32:
https://www.efl.com/contentassets/8a7f1cd734c545c6a9e4d3114325d9c8/221014---efl-
Looking forward if we assumed for a moment a great escape and retaining league status the economic outlook without "one-offs" then it is probably fair to assume a £1.5m loss without "one-offs". Arguably relegation to the National Leage yields probably the same numbers as revenue falls but so can costs.
A different way of framing the question is how does that £1.5m each year get funded? A Board of Directors, the club's shareholders, its supporters or a combination thereof?
The 2021/22 deficit was funded by issuing 396,942 at £2 per share - £0.8m.
The obvious observation to make is that if all current shareholders chose to take up their rights to buy shares then 450,000 at £2.35 would raise £1,057,500. However, how sustainable that is year on year given the current economics of football?
Based on the take-up you'd have to argue that it isn't sustainable at all. Equally in the current environment transfer fees and cup runs are not a viable economic strategy as they are haphazard.
In a "competition" where by the end of 2021/22:
(1) Salford had net liabilities of £11.5m and made a 2021/22 loss of £1.5m
- 10th place in League 2 in 2021/22
(2) Bradford had net liabilities of £1.1m and made a 2021/22 loss of £0.3m
- 14th place in League 2 in 2021/22
(3) Leyton Orient had net liabilities of £10.5m and made a 2021/22 loss of £2.3m - 13th place in League 2 in 2021/22
(4) Wrexham lost £3.4m not getting promoted into League 2.
By contrast, RAFC had made loss of £0.5m and had net assets of £1.8m - 18th place in League 2.
Having written all that I am not sure myself what the answer is.
Football is financially broken and I suspect in the next ten years a number will go to the wall once the US TV companies get their hands on the Premier League rights via Streaming rather than TV.
The lesser teams will have even fewer crumbs to live off then than they do now which is what makes financial sustainability the prize but that is easier said than done. |
Interesting post that and thanks. You ask the question 'How does that £1.5 million deficit get funded'. That unfortunately was a discussion that didn't involve any of the shareholders or the fans. I can't speak on behalf of the Supporters Trust but if the committee were consulted they certainly didn't let their members know. The answer to your question was that a handful of people in the boardroom took it upon themselves to change the whole concept of the club and basically put it up for sale, open the front door to another potential Morton House saga.
The sale of the shares were marketed around the club being fan owned, supporters bought shares on that basis and to not even consult them was a disgrace and will never be forgotten. Ignoring the very people who make this club what it is will really hurt the club now, at a time when they will be required to buy season tickets and football shirts etc. Something that helps to reduce any deficit. It's only inclusive when it suits. [Post edited 8 Apr 2023 18:36]
|  | | |
| Walsall home - match thread on 18:45 - Apr 8 with 2555 views | 442Dale |
Just a minute, what division are Blackburn Rovers in?
The club that were, but for a last minute hitch, presumably going to pay us a fee for Ethan Brierley. |  |
| |
| Walsall home - match thread on 19:57 - Apr 8 with 2350 views | dawlishdale |
| Walsall home - match thread on 17:09 - Apr 8 by RAFCBLUE |
"Share the pain" is a good way to look at the future of football DA given the nonsense economics and financials of football in the EFL.
In the Chairman's Letter open to shareholders - dated 28 October 2022 so before the EGM vote for new shares - it set out a really helpful appendix that shows the losses the club makes without "one-offs" (being transfer fees and cup runs) over the previous 5 seasons - so covering the current and previous two chairman and spells in League 1 and League 2.
Quoting directly the figures from that letter without "one-offs":
2017/18 (audited): Loss of £1,582,628
2018/19 (audited): Loss of £2,241,135
2019/20 (audited): Loss of £1,272,509
2020/21 (audited): Loss of £1,229,208
2021/22 (unaudited): Loss of £1,536,906
Now we know from the audited accounts just published at Companies House in 2021/22 the actual loss in 2021/22 was £467,356.
So, so much for Alexander Jarvis and his financial projections made in Summer 2022.....
The difference of £1,069,550 in 2021/22 must therefore be money from "one-offs" and the accounts refer to initial transfer fees (Humphrys, Rathbone, Beesley and Morley) and money from the FA Cup run which included a game on ITV.
This season the transfer market is significantly depressed - I can't think of a decent transfer fee paid by a Premier League or Championship club to either a League 1 League 2 club or (other than Wrexham) any club spraying significant money around.
The data on transfermarkt has numerous references to "free" or "loan" which isn't how the lower division model works when you only receive 8% of EFL funds in League 2 vs 80% of EFL funds going to the Championship.
The conclusion to draw is that those Championship clubs are not passing that money down any longer. Blackpool and Wigan who a season ago lifted a Dale player for a fee are about to be relegated back to League 1.
Reading have been punished for financial breaches. Sheffield United are under embargo and Birmingham City are the latest Championship club to be under the spotlight because, ironically, of another failed takeover.
Aside from Burnley who are going back to the Premier League most of the Championship is probably technically insolvent.
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/championship/transfers/wettbewerb/GB2
The Morton House narrative in July 2021 was going to be very straightforward. Buy the club from a small number of private shareholders on the cheap to gain 51% control, strip out the ground and then run the club into the ground and walk off into the sunset. It's exactly what happened at Bury and Macclesfield and though terminal for the football clubs concerned it was beneficial for the shareholder - Steve Dale getting back for example a lot more than he bought the club for.
Morton House and those who promoted them had no incentive to fund losses of £1.5m a season. Even the previous CEO and Rochdale fan since 1968, David Bottomley - sold his shares to Morton House - 12,960 as noted openly by the EFL's verdict into goings on. Graham Rawlinson another former director also sold as noted here in Paragraph 32:
https://www.efl.com/contentassets/8a7f1cd734c545c6a9e4d3114325d9c8/221014---efl-
Looking forward if we assumed for a moment a great escape and retaining league status the economic outlook without "one-offs" then it is probably fair to assume a £1.5m loss without "one-offs". Arguably relegation to the National Leage yields probably the same numbers as revenue falls but so can costs.
A different way of framing the question is how does that £1.5m each year get funded? A Board of Directors, the club's shareholders, its supporters or a combination thereof?
The 2021/22 deficit was funded by issuing 396,942 at £2 per share - £0.8m.
The obvious observation to make is that if all current shareholders chose to take up their rights to buy shares then 450,000 at £2.35 would raise £1,057,500. However, how sustainable that is year on year given the current economics of football?
Based on the take-up you'd have to argue that it isn't sustainable at all. Equally in the current environment transfer fees and cup runs are not a viable economic strategy as they are haphazard.
In a "competition" where by the end of 2021/22:
(1) Salford had net liabilities of £11.5m and made a 2021/22 loss of £1.5m
- 10th place in League 2 in 2021/22
(2) Bradford had net liabilities of £1.1m and made a 2021/22 loss of £0.3m
- 14th place in League 2 in 2021/22
(3) Leyton Orient had net liabilities of £10.5m and made a 2021/22 loss of £2.3m - 13th place in League 2 in 2021/22
(4) Wrexham lost £3.4m not getting promoted into League 2.
By contrast, RAFC had made loss of £0.5m and had net assets of £1.8m - 18th place in League 2.
Having written all that I am not sure myself what the answer is.
Football is financially broken and I suspect in the next ten years a number will go to the wall once the US TV companies get their hands on the Premier League rights via Streaming rather than TV.
The lesser teams will have even fewer crumbs to live off then than they do now which is what makes financial sustainability the prize but that is easier said than done. |
So what happened between the Chairman's "we are in a stable financial position and in a good position to compete" blah blah blah and the Boards decision to completely pull the rug from under those of us who put good money in to buying shares only to see the Board effectively put us up for sale?
My best guess is that the Board were given new and differing Legal advice telling them that they could possibly lose any case against MH (having previously been told that they would win) and they panicked and put the club up for sale.
Only a guess...but I was told by three separate New Board Directors that they were 100% confident that MH's share transfers were not legally correct.
If my guess is right; do the new Board have a legal case against those who gave them the original legal direction and subsequently backed down? Surely Legal council have some sort of financial indemnity for this sort of thing?
Either way; it leaves a nasty taste in the mouths of those of us who bought shares without any Exec or non ecec. benefits and who now stand to lose everything.
[Post edited 8 Apr 2023 20:08]
| | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Walsall home - match thread on 20:09 - Apr 8 with 2303 views | Rodingdale |
| Walsall home - match thread on 13:20 - Apr 7 by D_Alien |
Bennett is also out for the season, after surgery
Aidy White struggling after two concussions
This info comes via the Dale Newsletter, popping into my inbox less than two hours before kick off, when many people will already be out and about doing their pre-match thing
Good that we've finally got these updates from Big Jim, but not sure why they couldn't have been informed to fans well before now. (Yes, it's on the OS from yesterday but how many people routinely check that?)
Best bit of news: Mullarkey's fit again
[Post edited 7 Apr 2023 13:24]
|
I keep reading on here that a Dale Newsletter exists, assume that’s different from the Trust newsletter? If so what do you have to do to get one? As a season ticket and shareholder - you’d think I’d qualify to get one, but I’ve not ever received anything…. | | | |
| Walsall home - match thread on 20:13 - Apr 8 with 2295 views | NigelWatson |
| Walsall home - match thread on 18:12 - Apr 8 by kel |
IT’S ALL A CONSPIRACY AND ONLY YOU KNOW THE TRUTH.
I’m expecting you to say “do your own research” anytime now… |
Gerrit forward! | | | |
| Walsall home - match thread on 20:13 - Apr 8 with 2295 views | dawlishdale |
| Walsall home - match thread on 20:09 - Apr 8 by Rodingdale |
I keep reading on here that a Dale Newsletter exists, assume that’s different from the Trust newsletter? If so what do you have to do to get one? As a season ticket and shareholder - you’d think I’d qualify to get one, but I’ve not ever received anything…. |
I'm a shareholder, and 50 year season ticket holder. I too don't ever get one of these mystical Newsletters. | | | |
| Walsall home - match thread on 20:14 - Apr 8 with 2292 views | dawlishdale |
| Walsall home - match thread on 20:09 - Apr 8 by Rodingdale |
I keep reading on here that a Dale Newsletter exists, assume that’s different from the Trust newsletter? If so what do you have to do to get one? As a season ticket and shareholder - you’d think I’d qualify to get one, but I’ve not ever received anything…. |
I'm a shareholder, and 50 year season ticket holder. I too don't ever get one of these mystical Newsletters. I have communicated by email with the club many times, and they send me emails about other stuff.
It really is pathetic. | | | |
| Walsall home - match thread on 20:27 - Apr 8 with 2244 views | D_Alien |
| Walsall home - match thread on 19:57 - Apr 8 by dawlishdale |
So what happened between the Chairman's "we are in a stable financial position and in a good position to compete" blah blah blah and the Boards decision to completely pull the rug from under those of us who put good money in to buying shares only to see the Board effectively put us up for sale?
My best guess is that the Board were given new and differing Legal advice telling them that they could possibly lose any case against MH (having previously been told that they would win) and they panicked and put the club up for sale.
Only a guess...but I was told by three separate New Board Directors that they were 100% confident that MH's share transfers were not legally correct.
If my guess is right; do the new Board have a legal case against those who gave them the original legal direction and subsequently backed down? Surely Legal council have some sort of financial indemnity for this sort of thing?
Either way; it leaves a nasty taste in the mouths of those of us who bought shares without any Exec or non ecec. benefits and who now stand to lose everything.
[Post edited 8 Apr 2023 20:08]
|
There's another aspect to this
If the BoD were looking to recoup their financial input which helped saved the club initially and with the subsequent MH share acquisition - surely the way to do so would be to put their own shares up for sale
The 450,000 share issuance was entirely separate
[Post edited 8 Apr 2023 20:29]
| |
| |
| Walsall home - match thread on 20:30 - Apr 8 with 2231 views | TomRAFC |
| Walsall home - match thread on 15:38 - Apr 8 by electricblue |
"At April 2022, the club has a stable financial platform and cash reserves to be well positioned for next season. We have returned during 2021/22 to being a properly and prudently run football club and aligned our financial reporting year to 30th June alongside many other EFL clubs. The audited results for the year ended 30th June 2022 will be finalised later in the calendar year and then filed within the appropriate Companies House deadlines.
As we plan for next season, the club is working hard to maximise all available commercial revenue opportunities whilst simultaneously controlling and eliminating many unneeded costs. Every member of the Board of Directors acts for the club on a pro-bono basis and as a fan owned club, we seek to achieve break even or better financial result in each operating season.
Subject to final league positions, the club expects contingent transfer fee receipts before the end of the current financial year from three clubs for previously divested players following the achievement of performance-based milestones for those players and clubs. Those receipts will be deployed into the playing squad for next season.
We started shaping our squad for next season in January 2022 with the purchases of Tavhon Campbell, James Ball and Luke Charman and will continue to support Robbie Stockdale as far as possible as he builds his squad for next season this summer. The Board is planning for a significantly increased playing budget for next season.
Our financial approach means all revenue from our Season Card sales and commercial activities is invested as far as possible into our playing squad.
I know it sounds an obvious thing to say, but the more Season Cards that are sold by 30th June 2022, the stronger the position so that the Board can commit additional revenues on players for next season.
The club has no need to sell any players this summer but that does not mean there will not be any departures. No player will ever be sold by this Board of Directors until the valuation of that player is met by the buying club. That valuation includes the provision of relevant long-term performance-based payments and future sell on clauses.
On behalf of the Board of Directors, I would like to thank everyone for their support throughout this season.
Next year is going to be an exciting season and I hope that you will commit your support to the club and Robbie Stockdale by purchasing your Season Card and spreading the word around the people of Rochdale and the wider North Manchester area that this club is owned by the fans and operated for the fans"
So what as changed between this statement and when the BoD say they are moving from fan owned...... |
There's a partial answer in the first paragraph.
"We have returned during 2021/22 to being a properly and prudently run football club...".
The board saved the club, we're all hugely grateful, but how do you know you're running a football club in a proper and prudent way, if you don't know how to run a football club?
It's been an innocent, but costly, assumption by the board that their combined business acumen provided enough transferrable skills to run the club.
MARKT may help us with footballing operations, but we need outside expertise that helps the running of the rest of the club. | |
| |
| Walsall home - match thread on 20:31 - Apr 8 with 2227 views | D_Alien |
Enjoy being trashed by a nobody | |
| |
| Walsall home - match thread on 20:36 - Apr 8 with 2182 views | 442Dale |
It was always going to reach this point.
The messageboard has finally achieved Handforth Parish Council status. | |
| |
| Walsall home - match thread on 20:36 - Apr 8 with 2188 views | NigelWatson |
| Walsall home - match thread on 20:31 - Apr 8 by D_Alien |
Enjoy being trashed by a nobody |
"Gerrit forward" | | | |
| Walsall home - match thread on 20:50 - Apr 8 with 2111 views | D_Alien |
| Walsall home - match thread on 20:36 - Apr 8 by NigelWatson |
"Gerrit forward" |
Absolutely, 100% wrong about that too
You've massively misinterpreted comments about our goal-kick strategy which very nearly led to us going 0-2 down. Did you even watch what was happening, or is it just your innate prejudiced outlook coming to the fore again?
442's reference to Handforth Parish Council is apt. Small-minded doesn't even come close | |
| |
| Walsall home - match thread on 21:11 - Apr 8 with 2027 views | Plattyswrinklynuts |
| Walsall home - match thread on 18:45 - Apr 8 by 442Dale |
Just a minute, what division are Blackburn Rovers in?
The club that were, but for a last minute hitch, presumably going to pay us a fee for Ethan Brierley. |
Have we any written agreement to sell the lad to Blackburn? I sincerely hope not as his performance yesterday will have put several clubs on notice & no doubt increased his value. Bidding war please!! We need every penny. |  | | |
| Walsall home - match thread on 21:22 - Apr 8 with 1986 views | Alan_ADale |
| Walsall home - match thread on 20:50 - Apr 8 by D_Alien |
Absolutely, 100% wrong about that too
You've massively misinterpreted comments about our goal-kick strategy which very nearly led to us going 0-2 down. Did you even watch what was happening, or is it just your innate prejudiced outlook coming to the fore again?
442's reference to Handforth Parish Council is apt. Small-minded doesn't even come close |
he has no idea what is seen in any stand in person. giving it the big mouth from his finnish home
https://youtube.com/@nigelwatson2750 [Post edited 8 Apr 2023 21:25]
|  | | |
| Walsall home - match thread on 21:29 - Apr 8 with 1936 views | kel |
| Walsall home - match thread on 20:13 - Apr 8 by NigelWatson |
Gerrit forward! |
Do you wear your tin foil hat when you post on here? | | | |
| Walsall home - match thread on 21:30 - Apr 8 with 3719 views | kel |
To be fair, he doesn’t get all uppity about a footballer having the temerity to chew gum like some oddballs. | | | |
| Walsall home - match thread on 21:39 - Apr 8 with 3668 views | kel |
This country? | | | |
| Walsall home - match thread on 22:40 - Apr 8 with 3499 views | Sandyman |
| Walsall home - match thread on 21:39 - Apr 8 by kel |
This country? |
Finland, apparently.
So, I've been cluelessly misquoted on my observations of yesterday's game from the terraces by someone who is rarely if ever there. Doesn't bother me one little bit. I do hope, however, that this verbose individual supports the club from afar in deeds as in words like our overseas fans from Norway, Malta, Ireland etc etc.
Witnessing the unerring confidence of the perpetually ill-informed is one of life’s little amusements for those of us in the real world.
UP THE DALE |  | | |
| Walsall home - match thread on 22:44 - Apr 8 with 3477 views | James1980 |
He has proper gone down the conspiracy rabbit hole hasn't he | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
