Alex Rhodes

[millom red]

Now he has gone back to Brentford, i have a question.

With one loan ending(and they, mgmt and board, knew this last week), why did the RAF have to dig deep to pay for Lonnergen? Are the board taking the piss or what? And i still aint seen the board go  public with an ounce of grattitude to the RAF for signing Lonnergen :roll:

I know Ady say's he wants to talk to Leroy about getting Alex back,
but i cant see it happening cos he was hardly ever used when he was here.

Cheers,
Millom

[fatbury]

happy to take the money .. but not happy for the trust to hand out leaflets .. bit disgraceful really - at least Devlin would come on here and talk to us .. where are you STARNES??

[Arriba]

at least Devlin would come on here and talk to us .. where are you STARNES?

hopefully sorting out sturrocks contract!

[red macca]

happy to take the money .. but not happy for the trust to hand out leaflets .. bit disgraceful really - at least Devlin would come on here and talk to us .. where are you STARNES??

thats right fatbury you abuse the only one on the current board who will talk to the fans :?

[Frigby Daser]

Fatbury, whilst I don't think Martyn Starnes made the best move in preventing the leaflets being handed out, the Trust I'm sure would agree that the Red Army Fund doesn't operate on a tit-for-tat basis - it doesn't entitle the trust to 'credits' from the board so to speak - and it certainly isn't in the CEOs remit to come on messageboards and speak to us - he's said he'd take emails, what more do you want - he's running our football club, doing alright so far, so lets not slate him simply because he's on the board! That just strips credibility from all of the legitimate concerns we have.

If he's sat their waiting for the next batch of criticism then how can we possibly move forward? We can criticise when its called for, in the right manner that is constructive, but if we throw needless abuse at them then we're as bad as Diamandis!

[Sharky]

Anyway, back to Rhodes,
I havent been able to make the last couple of games, but why are we trying to get him back in again if we didnt even bother playing him in a full match?!

Was he any good??

[pauld]

the Trust I'm sure would agree that the Red Army Fund doesn't operate on a tit-for-tat basis - it doesn't entitle the trust to 'credits' from the board so to speak

Absolutely spot on Moonraker - we've never sought to use the Red Army Fund as leverage as such and nor would we, that would be just plain wrong. Not least because the SC are also involved in the RAF and that's not what people donate to the RAF for - they give money to the RAF so we can help sign players, pure and simple.

And, FWIW, there is now a very gracious acknowledgement of the RAF's involvement on the OS.

[TheKingCY]

Fatbury, whilst I don't think Martyn Starnes made the best move in preventing the leaflets being handed out, the Trust I'm sure would agree that the Red Army Fund doesn't operate on a tit-for-tat basis - it doesn't entitle the trust to 'credits' from the board so to speak - and it certainly isn't in the CEOs remit to come on messageboards and speak to us - he's said he'd take emails, what more do you want - he's running our football club, doing alright so far, so lets not slate him simply because he's on the board! That just strips credibility from all of the legitimate concerns we have.

If he's sat their waiting for the next batch of criticism then how can we possibly move forward? We can criticise when its called for, in the right manner that is constructive, but if we throw needless abuse at them then we're as bad as Diamandis!

Thought there was something in the contracts drawn up that the RAF would get recognition for players brought into the club.

http://www.truststfc.co.uk/RAF_terms.php

Number 14.

When a new player is signed, either permanently or on loan, due in whole or in part to monies made available by the fund, the fund shall be given full credit in associated press information (including the use of the fund logo/images etc.) and the player be reasonably made available from time to time for the purposes of promoting the fund itself (e.g. attending fundraising events, use of images in promotional literature/merchandise etc). Equal prominence should be given to the fund and the club in any press announcements regarding the signing of any such player.

[Frigby Daser]

I didn't mean credits in that sense - I meant that if the club felt the leaflets weren't appropriate then we shouldn't expect them to allow them because funds were donated for Lonergan's loan.

[sonic youth]

it's a bit hypocritical to take from the trust with one hand then use the other to stop them handing out leaflets, but that's a very simplistic view the situation.

anyway, as for rhodes - i've seen nothing from him that suggests to me he's a worthwhile signing. the other issue is why bring in a player on loan when we're about to appoint a new manager?

furthermore, considering a fortnight ago ady was talking of rhodes being at the club until january and now it's up in the air, i think that suggests change is imminent.

[STFC Village]

furthermore, considering a fortnight ago ady was talking of rhodes being at the club until january and now it's up in the air, i think that suggests change is imminent.

Really? What's happening?

[Iffy's Onion Bhaji]

with Sturrock hopefully coming in this week will he want to have Rhodes back anyway? he'll probably want to bring in his own players on loan if at all possible

[millom red]

I dont think the lad was given a proper chance tbh.
Shame really, from what we did see, he was sure as hell quick, and that dis-allowed goal was a quality finish.

Millom