Enfield Town v Cray Wanderers

[Theodopolous]

I think any mention of play offs/promotion by the board is just a dead herring ? MT ... I get the feeling they are more than happy with mid table maybe because they think the finances would be stretched if we did get promoted...and if we can achieve that with the cheapest option then all’s good.... the ridiculous match reports suggest almost a brain washing of supporters into believing things are better than they are .... 

[behind-the-goal]

"we were comprehensively outplayed for the first 45 minutes".

No we weren't. They were better than us. Not the same thing.

"soft penalty"? Nailed on in my opinion.

[MTHead]

It’s all about opinions, but Cray were much better, individually, tactically and they had a noticeable and well executed game plan. For the first 45 minutes we weren’t in it., if we’d be any better we would have been second to the ball !  A very soft penalty in my opinion, I was less than 20 yards  from the incident.

[djwilf]

15 minutes ago, MTHead said:

It’s all about opinions, but Cray were much better, individually, tactically and they had a noticeable and well executed game plan. For the first 45 minutes we weren’t in it., if we’d be any better we would have been second to the ball !  A very soft penalty in my opinion, I was less than 20 yards  from the incident.

Agreed.  We've had better calls for penalties this year and nowt given. First 20 minutes was like attack v defence.... Maybe that's how you get promotion... ?

[72wemblyfinal]

3 hours ago, Theodopolous said:

?

 

Edited January 27, 2020 by 72wemblyfinal

[4wembleyfinals]

MTH, I think when AL was appointed I did say the Board had had the choice of two young managers. One who as an assistant manager/coach had help a club not too distant from us to the National League play off final. 

At the time I believe the Board felt that both of them would put a strain on our finances because they had no experience of a club like ours. I don't think football management ability had much to do with their decision, hence they went with AL and DP. Who were considered to be a safe pair choice. But with the current philosophy I'm afraid this will always happen.

I also said at the time that a Stadium like ours needed a team worthy of bringing in large enough crowds which add to more revenue so as to make the playing side self sufficient. To achieve this you must have a better product.This would then give more of the other sources of income available towards the Charitable works in which the club wishes to engage in.

But then some will say what do I know. I do know that the accounts show an untenable bias to playing expenditure over income. This has to changed but if gates continue to fall all aspects of the club will suffer and will lead to the undoing all the achieves so far acquired by so many hard working people.

"He who dares wins."  A cliche I know but there is some truth in it.

Edited January 27, 2020 by 4wembleyfinals

[ETFC17]

All I’m hearing again from board members associated with the club is excuses again this week. This weeks one is ”we were playing a quality team in the play off spots”
Fair enough, but you can’t use that one against Brightlingsea x 2 and Finchley!!

it doesn’t matter who we play, play off hopefuls, title challengers, mid table teams, relegation strugglers. The quality of performance and often the result is still the same 

The excuse making the protect their precious manager is becoming tedious now