Meeting before the Macc game

[Fred Elliot]

Have to say Fred I tend to agree with Yeovil on this - there's a myriad of reasons why players change their minds. Rodgers for example clearly just got delusions of grandeur about dropping a League or more likely just preferred Port Vale because it's closer to Brum where he's based, given that we're likely to go up with some momentum (and so will hopefully kick on in  L1 next season), whereas Port Vale will continue to arse about mid-table in League One like they have done for the last 8 millenia.

OHHHHHHHHHHHH you had to do that didn't you !

I was just getting back to work work and then you do this to me.

So................................ this statement you have just made clearly applies to us and maybe a couple more clubs in this division then ?

If not why are players from higher divisions quite happy to sign for clubs that are below second in the table ?

Will I ever get this HSBC proposal finished ?

[pauld]

Answering your last two questions in order:

1) Erm dunno
2) Unlikely I'd have thought - you're far too easily distracted.

Actually I didn't mean it as a general explanation of all clubs in this League, just that there's a whole host of reasons why players decide not to sign, not just dosh. It may be that Sturrock has targeted a few individuals compared to other clubs going into scatter-gun panic buys, hence they've signed more but they may turn out to be indifferent quality. God knows we've had a few players come here over the years who've dropped down a division and the only thing you felt after seeing them was "keep dropping"

[Fred Elliot]

Yeah ok


So................................. what if the fresh water supply gets cut off to our building in Canada Square that feeds the cooling towers that in turn feed the Air con system and the ambient rises on the Trading Floor to 19 C.

What would you do as a disaster recovery plan peeps ?

[pauld]

Having accused you of being easily distracted, I've realised I can hear the pot calling the kettle black. So to respond in similar terms, should the correlation id for an async web service call be client-specified which creates the danger of colliding ids from separate clients, even if you add in IP addresses etc (due to firewalls, proxies etc), or generated on the server which runs the risk of introducing statefulness and means the client has to map the generated correlation ID into a meaningful ID within their own domain?

I'd have a crack squad of big blokes with palm fans like in them Cleopatra films on 24/7 emergency standby if I were you.

[Luci]

The pair of you are unbelieveably random.  

[pauld]

We're both still working at 2.30 in the morning - wouldn't you be?

Edit: Actually Fred might not be - either that or he's just jibbed out on answering my perfectly reasonable async correlation ID question. And after I suggested the blokes with the palm fans as well! Tcchhh! Some people.

[Luci]

We're both still working at 2.30 in the morning - wouldn't you be?

Edit: Actually Fred might not be - either that or he's just jibbed out on answering my perfectly reasonable async correlation ID question. And after I suggested the blokes with the palm fans as well! Tcchhh! Some people.

I wouldn't be working at 2.30 in the morning full stop but fair play to you! Can't believe everyones gone, especially Flammable Benji! I thought he was a hardcore late nighter!

[yeo]

Im here :x

[Luci]

Im here :x

I thought you may have been hidden!

 :bow1:

[Spud]

Im the most hardcore on here!  

[TalkTalk]

Ah well, back to the code.

Da Vinci?

[Reg Smeeton]

On the topic of boycotting the pre-Macc meeting, not sure what this would achieve, other than allowing the half dozen pro-board posters on thisis to engage in some "ha! Bottlers!" stuff. Surely would be better if people attend in numbers and ask them the questions that need asking? Like all the ones they refused to answer at the AGM about the financial situation for one thing.

Have to agree about Sturrock being there tho - that's a disgrace dragging the manager into this on the morning of a game. But if we all keep saying we won't attend if he is there, I think that's all the more likely to make them insist he attends. Because then they'll get a nice easy ride and can say "See? What was all the fuss about?"

And this is purely my own late-night musings, not an official Trust position or anything, although obviously I suspect this may arise as a topic in conversations between Trust board members over the next couple of days. Possibly. Ah well, back to the code.

 Attendance legitimises the presence of Newbury at the club.....in my eyes they've lost that ... the only meeting I'd attend would be a valedictory meeting......as Bullzeye points out this meeting is just a charade aimed at spliting the fan base.

 They've aleady stated no questions on the consortium so what's the point, there'll still be no answers....if they wont answer to an AGM, when there is some sort of legal obligation they're unlikely to do it at a fan's forum.

 Nothing against PS in this.....he's said he likes to get his hands dirty.....but a FF with the boss to talk football should be in the evening.....an orange picket has to be organised.....we could probably loan a brazier from the Fire Station.

[pauld]

Fair points Reg.

FWIW, Ben Lambert has responded to Rob Tuck's thread on thisis to say the meeting will not be before the Macc game so that PS can attend:

http://www.thisisstfc.co.uk/Forum_New/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=32491

Most likely be an evening next week or the week after apparently.

[DV]

aw, fred still thinks we're going to sign some players  

Yes, we got money from Monkhouse...but when was the last time we put money from a transfer back into the team?

[Fred Elliot]

aw, fred still thinks we're going to sign some players  

Yes, we got money from Monkhouse...but when was the last time we put money from a transfer back into the team?

No I dont DV

That was the whole crux of my issue, players do want to come here