It is currently Wed Sep 18, 2019 5:07 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 83 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Frickley set on more back room staff
PostPosted: Fri Jul 12, 2019 12:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2016 7:58 pm
Posts: 195
Ken Hill wrote:
the point is that chap is the reason we did not get promoted not Ruth who has been a great servant to the club but you are telling people she has been secretary for 20 years incorrect.


Ruth was football secretary for twenty years- https://mobile.twitter.com/frickleyafc/ ... 4776880129

Much like the Tyler Walton issue, you are fundamentally wrong, and still presenting your 'facts' as hard evidence. Ruth was indeed football secretary for twenty years. The club never announced Tyler Walton had signed for York. Two facts that you're having a very hard time accepting.

And again, on the points deduction issue- the secretary was a volunteer with a full time job. He made one mistake, and instead of blaming a team that played 40+ games and didn't win enough of them you resort to blaming a member of staff over the internet. Classy.

_________________
@ch_1401


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Frickley set on more back room staff
PostPosted: Fri Jul 12, 2019 1:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2018 2:27 pm
Posts: 64
Your obviously not very good at adding up, the 3 points deducted means one more game we won if the guy was overworked as you suggest why did he apply for the job. If as you say Ruth was football secretary for last twenty years what was Steve Pennocks and the guy from Garforths job.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Frickley set on more back room staff
PostPosted: Fri Jul 12, 2019 1:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2016 7:58 pm
Posts: 195
Why don't you stop criticising former members of staff over the internet, and actually try and get in touch with them (I'm sure someone will be able to pass on their contact details) and you can demand the explanation that you obviously want from them in person?

It's ridiculous to suggest that he was the sole reason we didn't get promoted. Unless the points deduction was an absolute surprise to the team and not announced after the season ended (which it wasn't, I can find you another link if you want), then the team should've tried harder to win more games to counter the fact they've lost points. The management and players are the reason they didn't win promotion- not an office-staffer who gave up his time to help the club. Who knows, perhaps it was his hard-work that meant we were able to sign a player in time for a big game, who went on to win it for us, winning us more points. We'll never know, but you obviously wouldn't care in the first place, you're just out to criticise someone.

Regarding Ruth, I'm not entirely sure what the role of football secretary did, and how it worked alongside the match day secretary. However, if you read the article you will have found that it was Ruth herself that said she was a secretary for the last twenty years- I know some on here think I'm a little deluded, but I think even the most ardent conspiracy theorists wouldn't have any reason to not believe that. Again, you seem to have a little trouble in accepting the truth.

_________________
@ch_1401


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Frickley set on more back room staff
PostPosted: Sat Jul 13, 2019 8:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2017 5:11 pm
Posts: 106
Ken Hill wrote:
Your obviously not very good at adding up, the 3 points deducted means one more game we won if the guy was overworked as you suggest why did he apply for the job. If as you say Ruth was football secretary for last twenty years what was Steve Pennocks and the guy from Garforths job.


This has been trotted out and quashed plenty of times. Alvechurch went on the lash straight after their draw against Bedworth (which assured their promotion). They lost against Loughborough on the last game of the season but took the game that seriously that the players turned up in fancy dress. Do you think if there was still any chance of us gaining promotion, they would have done that? Here is a quote from their website...

“The players arrived already in party mood, turning up in fancy dress costumes.
With their 4th game this week and 7th in last 2 weeks, players were looking a little jaded, particularly after Thursdays goalless draw against Bedworth United which guaranteed promotion to Step 3 at the first attempt, with the party going on til 3am.”

Losing those points wasn’t the best thing to happen, but we knew about it long before the season end, that wasn’t the reason we didn’t get promoted.

We didn’t get promoted because we took 1 point from Kidsgrove and dropped points against Carlton, Lincoln and Romulus.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Frickley set on more back room staff
PostPosted: Sat Jul 13, 2019 10:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 12:37 pm
Posts: 31
I hate it when people come on here & back up their assertions with hard data instead of blithely making stuff up - it ruins everything that's gone before


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Frickley set on more back room staff
PostPosted: Sun Jul 14, 2019 8:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 7:45 pm
Posts: 239
Location: r house
ch1401 wrote:
Judging by that reply, I'm going to assume it's a complete non-issue then. If you want to reveal any more then you're more than welcome to.


I take it your too busy eating that big piece of humble pie to raise an apology of accusing me of making things up. :oops: :oops: :oops:

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Frickley set on more back room staff
PostPosted: Sun Jul 14, 2019 11:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2008 9:45 am
Posts: 779
Ch1401 don’t do apologies b Stan.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Frickley set on more back room staff
PostPosted: Sun Jul 14, 2019 3:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2016 7:58 pm
Posts: 195
Oh, I never meant to accuse! Apologies if it came across that way. I find speculation a difficult issue- speculating over transfers is usually fun, but I'm uncomfortable with speculating over volunteers. I didn't want to assume anyone had left or was fired when there was no statement that it had happened. That's why I pressed for any evidence and claimed that it was "non-issue", because I didn't know about it and thought it wasn't my place to say anything- you obviously knew more than me! Apologies once again.

_________________
@ch_1401


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 83 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group