MATCHWATCH : Watford (a)

441 posts
User avatar
Ascotexgunner
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 5729
Joined: 07 Jan 2012 16:23
Location: Ascot

Re: MATCHWATCH : Watford (a)

by Ascotexgunner » 10 Apr 2021 12:59

Westwood52 No blame can attach to Pauno;but the acquisition of Gibson and Estevez has really screwed us over.Both were young kids totally unprepared for the Championship.Thus when injuries kicked in,both were unable to step up.We should have gone for a couple of experienced L1 pros.I wonder who made the decision on the two kids .We got badly burned with Virginia and should have learned the lesson then.


They arnt "aquasitions", they are loanees. We literally have to take loanees as we arnt allowed to spend. And next season is the same. FFP is now crippling half the championship clubs. Be like the Premier League soon where there is a gulf in wealth spend between top and bottom with relegated clubs coming down and buying their way back up.

On the subject of Paunovic. Again I'll say, this isn't his team. He has become my favourite manager since McD. He hasn't done much wrong this season, or last night imo? We did everything right but score. If we had commited and changed the plan we would have been picked off. At 2-0 we were still in the game.
It's not his fault our strikers miss from 3 yards or simple tap ins or penalties....or he has shit options on the bench like Laurel and Hardy. They will be gone soon.....thank God.
He has raised our expectations from where they are from the start of the season. He deserves credit not trolling like some unmentionable AHOLE has been posting on here last night.
With a thin squad and injuries he has started to get the best out of some of these players. He is exactly what we need to move on. I'm looking forward to next season already, safely in the championship ....with all the deadwood gone.
Last edited by Ascotexgunner on 10 Apr 2021 13:09, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
CountryRoyal
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 10697
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 13:44

Re: MATCHWATCH : Watford (a)

by CountryRoyal » 10 Apr 2021 13:03

Ascotexgunner
Westwood52 No blame can attach to Pauno;but the acquisition of Gibson and Estevez has really screwed us over.Both were young kids totally unprepared for the Championship.Thus when injuries kicked in,both were unable to step up.We should have gone for a couple of experienced L1 pros.I wonder who made the decision on the two kids .We got badly burned with Virginia and should have learned the lesson then.


They arnt "aquasitions", they are loanees. We literally have to take loanees as we arnt allowed to spend. And next season is the same. FFP is now crippling half the championship clubs. Be like the Premier League soon where there is a gulf in wealth spend between top and bottom with relegated clubs coming down and buying their way back up.


What is happening with the abandonment of FFP? Is that a thing still or was it just talk?

Snowball
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 20681
Joined: 02 Jan 2009 18:35

Re: MATCHWATCH : Watford (a)

by Snowball » 10 Apr 2021 13:06

CountryRoyal
Snowball
Millsy
Yes yes ageed of course but what's that to do with what we do on the day!?? and my question of why we seemed not to go 4-4-2 much earlier than 88mins? You're saying it's because we weren't expecting a win anyway?

Are you suggesting the reason why we didn't try harder to get a point or three from that game is because most rational people would have expected a defeat so we were just happy with that? The players certainly didn't feel that way as they kept trying so something clearly wasn't communicated if that was the gameplan!

Even a point from a draw would be absolutely critical. So I still don't see a reason Pauno would, at 2-0 down, at this stage of the season where every point is absolutely cricital, not at least try to be a bit more gung ho with Puscas and Joao up front especially after they very effectively blocked our style of play in the second half. Why did it take him until the 88min to go 2 up top.. and with whom, his only option then was flipping Baldock!!!

Talk about locking the door after the horse has bolted!

Don't worry I'm not saying Pauno out at all, but this was just bizarre to me.


Manager basically said they were knackered after giving all from 13-45 minutes

After that, going Gung-Ho might have meant a 5-0 defeat.

A 2-0 defeat is not the end of the world if we can win our three home games
and maybe other teams will still screw up. For one thing, they play each other


Yeah this basically. They ran out of steam and energy. Sure going 2 up top earlier might have changed the game but it also might not have.

Look at how Brentford panned out. We played at such an intensity, still lost and then turned into dogshite for the next month or so.


Agree with you agreeing. We made 17 chances with one up top

had we converted at Watford's rate we'd've won 17-2

User avatar
Ascotexgunner
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 5729
Joined: 07 Jan 2012 16:23
Location: Ascot

Re: MATCHWATCH : Watford (a)

by Ascotexgunner » 10 Apr 2021 13:16

CountryRoyal
Ascotexgunner
Westwood52 No blame can attach to Pauno;but the acquisition of Gibson and Estevez has really screwed us over.Both were young kids totally unprepared for the Championship.Thus when injuries kicked in,both were unable to step up.We should have gone for a couple of experienced L1 pros.I wonder who made the decision on the two kids .We got badly burned with Virginia and should have learned the lesson then.


They arnt "aquasitions", they are loanees. We literally have to take loanees as we arnt allowed to spend. And next season is the same. FFP is now crippling half the championship clubs. Be like the Premier League soon where there is a gulf in wealth spend between top and bottom with relegated clubs coming down and buying their way back up.


What is happening with the abandonment of FFP? Is that a thing still or was it just talk?


The list of clubs facing a transfer embargo are the following
Birmingham City, Blackburn Rovers, Cardiff City, Derby County, Huddersfield Town, Luton Town, Reading, Sheffield Wednesday and Stoke City.
Stoke might be removed. FFP rules have changed and in short company accounts are being scrutinised.
No final details yet but it looks like we are not going to be allowed to buy anyone next season, even if we sell. If any major anomalies are found, there will be a points deduction as well.

Phoenix Force
Member
Posts: 23
Joined: 08 Apr 2017 13:15
Location: Happy at home

Re: MATCHWATCH : Watford (a)

by Phoenix Force » 10 Apr 2021 14:39

biff Thought I'd just share what was actually said in case anyone is in any doubt that it's "an overblown lefty reaction" (im looking at you Kuntbota). Made me sick to my stomach and the police have been notified. This is why we kneel.



I am usually a tad careful about my language, but ..

Utter oxf*rd like that should not be allowed to go near society let alone the club. If you are on HNA and are the perpetrator of that racist bollocks then fee free to ‘justify’ your utter oxf*rd, in public.


Phoenix Force
Member
Posts: 23
Joined: 08 Apr 2017 13:15
Location: Happy at home

Re: MATCHWATCH : Watford (a)

by Phoenix Force » 10 Apr 2021 14:41

Phoenix Force
biff Thought I'd just share what was actually said in case anyone is in any doubt that it's "an overblown lefty reaction" (im looking at you Kuntbota). Made me sick to my stomach and the police have been notified. This is why we kneel.



I am usually a tad careful about my language, but ..

Utter oxf*rd like that should not be allowed to go near society let alone the club. If you are on HNA and are the perpetrator of that racist bollocks then fee free to ‘justify’ your utter oxf*rd, in public.



To aid the reading of this. The oxf*rd comments should read Kunts an Kuntishness.

User avatar
bcubed
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 11440
Joined: 30 Oct 2004 18:16
Location: Would do better with a stick of rhubarb

Re: MATCHWATCH : Watford (a)

by bcubed » 10 Apr 2021 15:15

bcubed
Snowball
Stranded
Yep 0 was always likely. Playoffs always likely to come to the 4 games v Cardiff,Luton, Swansea and Huddersfield. We need 4 wins, which we can do. A draw in one may still do as long as it isn't against Swansea.


Absolutely. In the “Run-In” thread this is exactly how I have it.

Obviously, it is really easy to blow it, but on current form, Swansea Re awful, Cardiff not great, Hudds poorish and Luton 17th

I “presumed” losses at Norwich and Watford but hoped for narrow defeats and not too much damage to GD

The only thing I'm taking solace in right now is your predicted run in results. You tend to well on the predictions (admittedly it's your own format!) and you still have us sneaking in to the play offs


FFS Snowball you said 1 - 0 Millwall
What's going on?!

Millsy
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 10022
Joined: 16 Jul 2004 18:36
Location: Running from The Left

Re: MATCHWATCH : Watford (a)

by Millsy » 10 Apr 2021 15:18

CountryRoyal
Snowball
Millsy
Yes yes ageed of course but what's that to do with what we do on the day!?? and my question of why we seemed not to go 4-4-2 much earlier than 88mins? You're saying it's because we weren't expecting a win anyway?

Are you suggesting the reason why we didn't try harder to get a point or three from that game is because most rational people would have expected a defeat so we were just happy with that? The players certainly didn't feel that way as they kept trying so something clearly wasn't communicated if that was the gameplan!

Even a point from a draw would be absolutely critical. So I still don't see a reason Pauno would, at 2-0 down, at this stage of the season where every point is absolutely cricital, not at least try to be a bit more gung ho with Puscas and Joao up front especially after they very effectively blocked our style of play in the second half. Why did it take him until the 88min to go 2 up top.. and with whom, his only option then was flipping Baldock!!!

Talk about locking the door after the horse has bolted!

Don't worry I'm not saying Pauno out at all, but this was just bizarre to me.


Manager basically said they were knackered after giving all from 13-45 minutes

After that, going Gung-Ho might have meant a 5-0 defeat.

A 2-0 defeat is not the end of the world if we can win our three home games
and maybe other teams will still screw up. For one thing, they play each other


Yeah this basically. They ran out of steam and energy. Sure going 2 up top earlier might have changed the game but it also might not have.

Look at how Brentford panned out. We played at such an intensity, still lost and then turned into dogshite for the next month or so.


Ok I can see the logic vaguely so thanks for answering my Q but I smell bullshit and it was wrong call and I question him even more. Thoroughly unimpressed if that's his actual thinking.

- I didn't see the players just giving up, they still gave their all.

- I didn't see Pauno revert to a play it is easy, total defensive attitude for the rest of the game to conserve goal difference. If that was his plan he did it very badly and strangely and is unable to get his game plan across.

- Why then suddenly at 88mins decide no actually we DO want to go 442 and try and get a point. If the gameplay was take it easy, save energy, kill the game why the sudden change at 88mins?

-Going 442 isn't exactly going gung ho is it? It's basically going into a basic normal style of play that's slightly more attacking than 1 up front. If we were to let in a third, ok then we shut up shop if we're worried about GD.

-It's not like we were being totally outplayed and battered. If it was this response would have been reasonable. And we'd actually shut up shop, which we did NOT (see above). Most would agree we made the better chances and were a bit unlucky. We were thoroughly in the game.

-It is beyond ridiculous given the above that we would go for goal difference over and above a point. But as I say at 3-0 down, that's fine. Not at 2-0.

-If going for resting players and settling for a draw (ridiculous for all reasons above but let's go with it) why the flying f**k risk João bringing him on? Either we're resigned to defeat in which case rest the guy and let Baldock dick around up front, or allow Puscas more of a deserved run out.

For the reasons above I'm sorry I just do not buy that BS excuse at all and if that is genuinely what he was going I have serious concerns about his game management ability and logic not least because he was totally ineffective at managing to do it as the players looked a million miles from taking it easy.

I suspect the truth is he was just beaten tactically and had no idea what to do. 2-0 down, ok, but then we could/should have got back into the game as we dominated. Half time and their manager makes changes that totally nullify our threat and we have no plan B, Pauno is completely unable to react. The players still exhaust themselves, work their socks off, we still bring on João in a desperate attempt to try to get something, the penny finally drops at 88mins as they continue to try to push for a point but it's too little too late. 442 much earlier on with Joao and Puscas would have been the obvious choice to shake things up a bit given their manager managed to easily nullify our 2-0 football, but he cocked it up.

I'd have respected "yes in retrospect we should have had 442 with João and Puscas, I made the wrong call". This just sounds like a messy excuse that doesn't add up.

Every point counts! If all we're doing is worrying about goal difference at this stage in the season we have no business even talking about the playoffs and the guy is utterly inept. Is that seriously our philosophy now? A team looking to compete in the Premier League? FFS.

No wonder since our opening honeymoon patch we've been basically shite.

Royal_jimmy
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 4949
Joined: 10 Aug 2011 10:44
Location: Planet Earth

Re: MATCHWATCH : Watford (a)

by Royal_jimmy » 10 Apr 2021 15:19

Ascotexgunner
CountryRoyal
Ascotexgunner
They arnt "aquasitions", they are loanees. We literally have to take loanees as we arnt allowed to spend. And next season is the same. FFP is now crippling half the championship clubs. Be like the Premier League soon where there is a gulf in wealth spend between top and bottom with relegated clubs coming down and buying their way back up.


What is happening with the abandonment of FFP? Is that a thing still or was it just talk?


The list of clubs facing a transfer embargo are the following
Birmingham City, Blackburn Rovers, Cardiff City, Derby County, Huddersfield Town, Luton Town, Reading, Sheffield Wednesday and Stoke City.
Stoke might be removed. FFP rules have changed and in short company accounts are being scrutinised.
No final details yet but it looks like we are not going to be allowed to buy anyone next season, even if we sell. If any major anomalies are found, there will be a points deduction as well.


FFP is a joke and needs reviewing


Millsy
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 10022
Joined: 16 Jul 2004 18:36
Location: Running from The Left

Re: MATCHWATCH : Watford (a)

by Millsy » 10 Apr 2021 15:34

Re: what poor Moore has had to put up with this is more than just racism. Possibly worse this is a concerted attempt at division and professional trolling.

I've said it before and I say it again- HNA is complicit by not removing the likes of Kuntbota the professional troll. Sure another poster, more hits, more discussion, more posts, more advert revenue. At what cost? At least OMA was a genuine dick in the way he spoke to people, definitely not a troll and certainly nowhere near racist. There are genuine trolls here who may or may not be privately racist and HNA is allowing it for the sake of a few extra pennies.

Time to make a stand here also and if not, perhaps we should be looking for alternative RFC forums, this is not the only one.
Last edited by Millsy on 10 Apr 2021 15:36, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
CountryRoyal
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 10697
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 13:44

Re: MATCHWATCH : Watford (a)

by CountryRoyal » 10 Apr 2021 15:35

Millsy
CountryRoyal
Snowball
Manager basically said they were knackered after giving all from 13-45 minutes

After that, going Gung-Ho might have meant a 5-0 defeat.

A 2-0 defeat is not the end of the world if we can win our three home games
and maybe other teams will still screw up. For one thing, they play each other


Yeah this basically. They ran out of steam and energy. Sure going 2 up top earlier might have changed the game but it also might not have.

Look at how Brentford panned out. We played at such an intensity, still lost and then turned into dogshite for the next month or so.


Ok I can see the logic vaguely so thanks for answering my Q but I smell bullshit and it was wrong call and I question him even more. Thoroughly unimpressed if that's his actual thinking.

- I didn't see the players just giving up, they still gave their all.

- I didn't see Pauno revert to a play it is easy, total defensive attitude for the rest of the game to conserve goal difference. If that was his plan he did it very badly and strangely and is unable to get his game plan across.

- Why then suddenly at 88mins decide no actually we DO want to go 442 and try and get a point. If the gameplay was take it easy, save energy, kill the game why the sudden change at 88mins?

-Going 442 isn't exactly going gung ho is it? It's basically going into a basic normal style of play that's slightly more attacking than 1 up front. If we were to let in a third, ok then we shut up shop if we're worried about GD.

-It's not like we were being totally outplayed and battered. If it was this response would have been reasonable. And we'd actually shut up shop, which we did NOT (see above). Most would agree we made the better chances and were a bit unlucky. We were thoroughly in the game.

-It is beyond ridiculous given the above that we would go for goal difference over and above a point. But as I say at 3-0 down, that's fine. Not at 2-0.

-If going for resting players and settling for a draw (ridiculous for all reasons above but let's go with it) why the flying f**k risk João bringing him on? Either we're resigned to defeat in which case rest the guy and let Baldock dick around up front, or allow Puscas more of a deserved run out.

For the reasons above I'm sorry I just do not buy that BS excuse at all and if that is genuinely what he was going I have serious concerns about his game management ability and logic not least because he was totally ineffective at managing to do it as the players looked a million miles from taking it easy.

I suspect the truth is he was just beaten tactically and had no idea what to do. 2-0 down, ok, but then we could/should have got back into the game as we dominated. Half time and their manager makes changes that totally nullify our threat and we have no plan B, Pauno is completely unable to react. The players still exhaust themselves, work their socks off, we still bring on João in a desperate attempt to try to get something, the penny finally drops at 88mins as they continue to try to push for a point but it's too little too late. 442 much earlier on with Joao and Puscas would have been the obvious choice to shake things up a bit given their manager managed to easily nullify our 2-0 football, but he cocked it up.

I'd have respected "yes in retrospect we should have had 442 with João and Puscas, I made the wrong call". This just sounds like a messy excuse that doesn't add up.

Every point counts! If all we're doing is worrying about goal difference at this stage in the season we have no business even talking about the playoffs and the guy is utterly inept. Is that seriously our philosophy now? A team looking to compete in the Premier League? FFS.

No wonder since our opening honeymoon patch we've been basically shite.



I agree with a lot of what you’re saying, and I’m probably one of Pauno’s harshest critics on here but I just feel last night, wouldn’t have made that much difference either way.

Pauno’s biggest mistake was Gibson over Richards. We’re disappointingly used to the rest, never taking initiative, reactive substitutions, late and often without sound logic.

Ultimately though I just keep going back to imho it probably wouldn’t have mattered either way. Plenty more games and moments this season was lost over this game.

And it’s not even lost yet, we still have a chance.

Millsy
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 10022
Joined: 16 Jul 2004 18:36
Location: Running from The Left

Re: MATCHWATCH : Watford (a)

by Millsy » 10 Apr 2021 15:40

CountryRoyal
Millsy
CountryRoyal
Yeah this basically. They ran out of steam and energy. Sure going 2 up top earlier might have changed the game but it also might not have.

Look at how Brentford panned out. We played at such an intensity, still lost and then turned into dogshite for the next month or so.


Ok I can see the logic vaguely so thanks for answering my Q but I smell bullshit and it was wrong call and I question him even more. Thoroughly unimpressed if that's his actual thinking.

- I didn't see the players just giving up, they still gave their all.

- I didn't see Pauno revert to a play it is easy, total defensive attitude for the rest of the game to conserve goal difference. If that was his plan he did it very badly and strangely and is unable to get his game plan across.

- Why then suddenly at 88mins decide no actually we DO want to go 442 and try and get a point. If the gameplay was take it easy, save energy, kill the game why the sudden change at 88mins?

-Going 442 isn't exactly going gung ho is it? It's basically going into a basic normal style of play that's slightly more attacking than 1 up front. If we were to let in a third, ok then we shut up shop if we're worried about GD.

-It's not like we were being totally outplayed and battered. If it was this response would have been reasonable. And we'd actually shut up shop, which we did NOT (see above). Most would agree we made the better chances and were a bit unlucky. We were thoroughly in the game.

-It is beyond ridiculous given the above that we would go for goal difference over and above a point. But as I say at 3-0 down, that's fine. Not at 2-0.

-If going for resting players and settling for a draw (ridiculous for all reasons above but let's go with it) why the flying f**k risk João bringing him on? Either we're resigned to defeat in which case rest the guy and let Baldock dick around up front, or allow Puscas more of a deserved run out.

For the reasons above I'm sorry I just do not buy that BS excuse at all and if that is genuinely what he was going I have serious concerns about his game management ability and logic not least because he was totally ineffective at managing to do it as the players looked a million miles from taking it easy.

I suspect the truth is he was just beaten tactically and had no idea what to do. 2-0 down, ok, but then we could/should have got back into the game as we dominated. Half time and their manager makes changes that totally nullify our threat and we have no plan B, Pauno is completely unable to react. The players still exhaust themselves, work their socks off, we still bring on João in a desperate attempt to try to get something, the penny finally drops at 88mins as they continue to try to push for a point but it's too little too late. 442 much earlier on with Joao and Puscas would have been the obvious choice to shake things up a bit given their manager managed to easily nullify our 2-0 football, but he cocked it up.

I'd have respected "yes in retrospect we should have had 442 with João and Puscas, I made the wrong call". This just sounds like a messy excuse that doesn't add up.

Every point counts! If all we're doing is worrying about goal difference at this stage in the season we have no business even talking about the playoffs and the guy is utterly inept. Is that seriously our philosophy now? A team looking to compete in the Premier League? FFS.

No wonder since our opening honeymoon patch we've been basically shite.



I agree with a lot of what you’re saying, and I’m probably one of Pauno’s harshest critics on here but I just feel last night, wouldn’t have made that much difference either way.

Pauno’s biggest mistake was Gibson over Richards. We’re disappointingly used to the rest, never taking initiative, reactive substitutions, late and often without sound logic.

Ultimately though I just keep going back to imho it probably wouldn’t have mattered either way. Plenty more games and moments this season was lost over this game.

And it’s not even lost yet, we still have a chance.


Agree with all of that yes.

Snowball
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 20681
Joined: 02 Jan 2009 18:35

Re: MATCHWATCH : Watford (a)

by Snowball » 10 Apr 2021 16:04

bcubed
bcubed
Snowball
Absolutely. In the “Run-In” thread this is exactly how I have it.

Obviously, it is really easy to blow it, but on current form, Swansea Re awful, Cardiff not great, Hudds poorish and Luton 17th
By
I “presumed” losses at Norwich and Watford but hoped for narrow defeats and not too much damage to GD

The only thing I'm taking solace in right now is your predicted run in results. You tend to well on the predictions (admittedly it's your own format!) and you still have us sneaking in to the play offs




FFS Snowball you said 1 - 0 Millwall
What's going on?!


Was hoping (believing) Swansea’s bad run would continue

Thought they looked very ordinary until Ayew scored


User avatar
bcubed
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 11440
Joined: 30 Oct 2004 18:16
Location: Would do better with a stick of rhubarb

Re: MATCHWATCH : Watford (a)

by bcubed » 10 Apr 2021 16:16

Snowball
bcubed
bcubed The only thing I'm taking solace in right now is your predicted run in results. You tend to well on the predictions (admittedly it's your own format!) and you still have us sneaking in to the play offs




FFS Snowball you said 1 - 0 Millwall
What's going on?!


Was hoping (believing) Swansea’s bad run would continue

Thought they looked very ordinary until Ayew scored


Yep shame

I was looking for some hope
And latched on to your prediction skills.

Not looking good for us today now.

User avatar
Snowflake Royal
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 39402
Joined: 20 Jun 2017 17:51

Re: MATCHWATCH : Watford (a)

by Snowflake Royal » 10 Apr 2021 17:03

Ascotexgunner
CountryRoyal
Ascotexgunner
They arnt "aquasitions", they are loanees. We literally have to take loanees as we arnt allowed to spend. And next season is the same. FFP is now crippling half the championship clubs. Be like the Premier League soon where there is a gulf in wealth spend between top and bottom with relegated clubs coming down and buying their way back up.


What is happening with the abandonment of FFP? Is that a thing still or was it just talk?


The list of clubs facing a transfer embargo are the following
Birmingham City, Blackburn Rovers, Cardiff City, Derby County, Huddersfield Town, Luton Town, Reading, Sheffield Wednesday and Stoke City.
Stoke might be removed. FFP rules have changed and in short company accounts are being scrutinised.
No final details yet but it looks like we are not going to be allowed to buy anyone next season, even if we sell. If any major anomalies are found, there will be a points deduction as well.

That's a hugely negative look at the situation when two clubs have confirmed they're on an embargo simply because they have an extension with Companies House to file their accounts while the FL haven't moved their deadline.

So that's a 5th of the mentioned clubs who'll be out of embargo as soon as they file their accounts.

We've had FFP trouble for a few years now and cooperated with the FL and still signed players. So saying we won't be able to sign anyone in the summer, even if we sell is fantasy land.

User avatar
Zip
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 22408
Joined: 30 Dec 2017 16:39

Re: MATCHWATCH : Watford (a)

by Zip » 10 Apr 2021 19:59

Snowflake Royal
Ascotexgunner
CountryRoyal
What is happening with the abandonment of FFP? Is that a thing still or was it just talk?


The list of clubs facing a transfer embargo are the following
Birmingham City, Blackburn Rovers, Cardiff City, Derby County, Huddersfield Town, Luton Town, Reading, Sheffield Wednesday and Stoke City.
Stoke might be removed. FFP rules have changed and in short company accounts are being scrutinised.
No final details yet but it looks like we are not going to be allowed to buy anyone next season, even if we sell. If any major anomalies are found, there will be a points deduction as well.

That's a hugely negative look at the situation when two clubs have confirmed they're on an embargo simply because they have an extension with Companies House to file their accounts while the FL haven't moved their deadline.

So that's a 5th of the mentioned clubs who'll be out of embargo as soon as they file their accounts.

We've had FFP trouble for a few years now and cooperated with the FL and still signed players. So saying we won't be able to sign anyone in the summer, even if we sell is fantasy land.


it still seems strange how we managed to sign Puscas and Joao in August 2019.

Westwood52
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 1083
Joined: 08 Oct 2010 16:46

Re: MATCHWATCH : Watford (a)

by Westwood52 » 11 Apr 2021 16:07

It is something of a surprise to me how rarely retrospective red cards are not applied by the F A (?).I am referring of course to Pedro s forearm smash on Tom Holmes late on during Friday nights game.Now you cannot expect the authorities to forensically review every minute of every game.However Friday night was a high profile game televised on “national “ television,and the offence represented a very bad example to younger viewers.
Now the rules are framed to ensure that games are not re reffed.So if the ref saw the offence and decided not to act,then the ruling authority are not prepared to act .One wonders if the powers that be,would ask the ref whether he saw the incident clearly and he decided not to act.
Do refs look at games afterwards to identify where they got it wrong ? I know Mark Clattenberg use to;but some refs clearly would not because it could destroy their confidence to perform in future.I assume equally that there is no mechanism ,for Reading to raise the issue.Maybe some clubs would in any case take the view that what goes around comes around.

User avatar
bcubed
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 11440
Joined: 30 Oct 2004 18:16
Location: Would do better with a stick of rhubarb

Re: MATCHWATCH : Watford (a)

by bcubed » 11 Apr 2021 17:22

Westwood52 It is something of a surprise to me how rarely retrospective red cards are not applied by the F A (?).I am referring of course to Pedro s forearm smash on Tom Holmes late on during Friday nights game.Now you cannot expect the authorities to forensically review every minute of every game.However Friday night was a high profile game televised on “national “ television,and the offence represented a very bad example to younger viewers.
Now the rules are framed to ensure that games are not re reffed.So if the ref saw the offence and decided not to act,then the ruling authority are not prepared to act .One wonders if the powers that be,would ask the ref whether he saw the incident clearly and he decided not to act.
Do refs look at games afterwards to identify where they got it wrong ? I know Mark Clattenberg use to;but some refs clearly would not because it could destroy their confidence to perform in future.I assume equally that there is no mechanism ,for Reading to raise the issue.Maybe some clubs would in any case take the view that what goes around comes around.

Don't know what the rules are but it's clearly bad for the game if this sort of thuggery is seen widely and goes unpunished.

He should definitely be getting a retrospective red card for this. And imo even if the ref saw it at the time it should still be a red. If he saw this he couldn't have seen it clearly and there's really no doubt from the replay

Westwood52
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 1083
Joined: 08 Oct 2010 16:46

Re: MATCHWATCH : Watford (a)

by Westwood52 » 11 Apr 2021 18:35

bcubed
Westwood52 It is something of a surprise to me how rarely retrospective red cards are not applied by the F A (?).I am referring of course to Pedro s forearm smash on Tom Holmes late on during Friday nights game.Now you cannot expect the authorities to forensically review every minute of every game.However Friday night was a high profile game televised on “national “ television,and the offence represented a very bad example to younger viewers.
Now the rules are framed to ensure that games are not re reffed.So if the ref saw the offence and decided not to act,then the ruling authority are not prepared to act .One wonders if the powers that be,would ask the ref whether he saw the incident clearly and he decided not to act.
Do refs look at games afterwards to identify where they got it wrong ? I know Mark Clattenberg use to;but some refs clearly would not because it could destroy their confidence to perform in future.I assume equally that there is no mechanism ,for Reading to raise the issue.Maybe some clubs would in any case take the view that what goes around comes around.

Don't know what the rules are but it's clearly bad for the game if this sort of thuggery is seen widely and goes unpunished.

He should definitely be getting a retrospective red card for this. And imo even if the ref saw it at the time it should still be a red. If he saw this he couldn't have seen it clearly and there's really no doubt from the replay


Yes it’s double standards from the FA.They say they are worried about concussion;but Pedro could have done some serious damage to Tom.

User avatar
Lower West
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 4915
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 11:35
Location: Admiring Clem Morfuni at Work

Re: MATCHWATCH : Watford (a)

by Lower West » 11 Apr 2021 19:06

Millsy
I suspect the truth is he was just beaten tactically and had no idea what to do. 2-0 down, ok, but then we could/should have got back into the game as we dominated. Half time and their manager makes changes that totally nullify our threat and we have no plan B, Pauno is completely unable to react.


The season started as Bowen's team and is ending as Bowen's team. Tactically Pauno looks as lost as Stam and Gomes. Far too often this season we've been sussed and the weakness in the formation exposed. Haven't moved forward.

441 posts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ankeny, tmesis and 384 guests

It is currently 28 Mar 2024 22:49