|
|
Post by ontheup on Nov 27, 2014 23:38:47 GMT
By definition an agreement is something that suits both parties and whilst I'm not suggesting this is a completely selfless act by Steve McKimm but from the point of view of a Maidstone fan I think we benefit out of this agreement more than them.
Would you rather we didn't come to this agreement and had Parkinson suspended for the game at Wrexham? Perhaps Jay should have not agreed to this on the basis that SM was doing it purely for his own benefit?
Perhaps you could explain to me how this is more beneficial to Tonbridge Angels than it is for us? They get half the gate don't they? Does McKimm think playing the game next Thursday between reserves on both sides will attract a bigger crowd than if we played it at a later date between 1st teams?
One of his best and most influential players is Jacks brother, he is very good mates with Jay, are you suggesting none of these factors were considered?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2014 0:20:42 GMT
That's a different post,OTU and i agree with most of it..Mckimm has not pulled the wool over my eyes.
This is not a gesture as you earlier suggested to do us a favour its probably equal.
There is no class in mckimms decision as it suits his own end just as much.
The game against Wrexham means nothing to Mckimm win ten nil or lose ten nil with who ever playing,it has no Angels aspect or relevance does it. thats the bottom line.
BUT SM now by changing gets J Parkinson Banned when he wants him banned,he is using that for his own end
Gate is never going to be that big give or take a hundred,all the LCUP And KSC gates have been low by our standard and a later date in jan would not of been first teamers either
|
|
|
|
Post by jt on Nov 28, 2014 5:09:25 GMT
There was me thinking that there wasn't a free Tuesday when both clubs would be available to play it that it avoids a massive fixture backlog.
I think the fa would take a very dim view of any "back scratching" or favours being done just so one player would be available for one game
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2014 8:08:17 GMT
There was me thinking that there wasn't a free Tuesday when both clubs would be available to play it that it avoids a massive fixture backlog. I think the fa would take a very dim view of any "back scratching" or favours being done just so one player would be available for one game I think you're right jt, Parkinson's suspension is just a bonus of an arrangement that had to be made anyway. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2014 8:58:55 GMT
By definition an agreement is something that suits both parties and whilst I'm not suggesting this is a completely selfless act by Steve McKimm but from the point of view of a Maidstone fan I think we benefit out of this agreement more than them. Would you rather we didn't come to this agreement and had Parkinson suspended for the game at Wrexham? Perhaps Jay should have not agreed to this on the basis that SM was doing it purely for his own benefit? Perhaps you could explain to me how this is more beneficial to Tonbridge Angels than it is for us? They get half the gate don't they? Does McKimm think playing the game next Thursday between reserves on both sides will attract a bigger crowd than if we played it at a later date between 1st teams? One of his best and most influential players is Jacks brother, he is very good mates with Jay, are you suggesting none of these factors were considered? Is Tom Parkinson Jack's brother then, I knew (at least I thought I knew) that Dan and JP were brothers, didnt realise there were 3 of them? |
|
|
|
Post by jt on Nov 28, 2014 9:27:13 GMT
It is obvious the only reason its next thursday is so jacks ban isnt for wrexham. Wed have played our reserves and academy lot against tonbridge anyway. If the FA thought the same I'm pretty sure they would have something to say about it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2014 9:48:26 GMT
maybe but what can they do its not againSt any rules is it?
|
|
|
|
Post by ontheup on Nov 28, 2014 10:51:56 GMT
By definition an agreement is something that suits both parties and whilst I'm not suggesting this is a completely selfless act by Steve McKimm but from the point of view of a Maidstone fan I think we benefit out of this agreement more than them. Would you rather we didn't come to this agreement and had Parkinson suspended for the game at Wrexham? Perhaps Jay should have not agreed to this on the basis that SM was doing it purely for his own benefit? Perhaps you could explain to me how this is more beneficial to Tonbridge Angels than it is for us? They get half the gate don't they? Does McKimm think playing the game next Thursday between reserves on both sides will attract a bigger crowd than if we played it at a later date between 1st teams? One of his best and most influential players is Jacks brother, he is very good mates with Jay, are you suggesting none of these factors were considered? Is Tom Parkinson Jack's brother then, I knew (at least I thought I knew) that Dan and JP were brothers, didnt realise there were 3 of them? There is actually 4 brothers |
|
|
|
Post by hitmanhearn* on Nov 28, 2014 11:30:06 GMT
i won't be coming - reserve football is rubbish isn't it
this did confuse me , i think there was a decent date in Jan , perhaps we could come to an arrangement where we both get knocked out , i'm sure we can both find some ineligible donkeys , double barrelled surnames full of Q's and K's , lots of pace and not much else
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2014 12:01:43 GMT
If you saw our game on Tuesday, HH, you may have a different opinion of games involving reserve and fringe team players. Most entertaining.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2014 12:33:56 GMT
If you saw our game on Tuesday, HH, you may have a different opinion of games involving reserve and fringe team players. Most entertaining. I think he is referring to the quality of the Tonbridge backup players!  |
|
|
|
Post by moley on Nov 28, 2014 12:38:32 GMT
I think we are forgetting that Jay and Steve McKimm were teammates at Margate or Gravesend or both, and that the Tonbridge manager may be returning a favour already done at some point past. That is of course IF the game was arranged due to the JP ban which of course it WASN'T
|
|
|
|
Post by hitmanhearn* on Nov 28, 2014 12:59:19 GMT
If you saw our game on Tuesday, HH, you may have a different opinion of games involving reserve and fringe team players. Most entertaining. I think he is referring to the quality of the Tonbridge backup players! i've never been to a reserve fixture in my life , oh no i have it was ordinary , they always are , you get this overwhelming feeling that the result isn't that important , you spend too long in ther bar around half time , you think " whats that blokes name , he looks alright" then he gets in the first team , and you think " crap" i read these threads on your forum , and i forget you are just in the ryman league , get over yourselves , its not very becomming when souness is banging on about your champions league match on sky then you can get all gloaty , until that day , shut it |
|
|
|
Post by Scot Stone on Nov 28, 2014 16:44:29 GMT
Is the date of the game dependant on the Tonbridge v Bromley FA Trophy tie NOT going to a replay?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2014 16:57:28 GMT
Is the date of the game dependant on the Tonbridge v Bromley FA Trophy tie NOT going to a replay? I'm pretty sure that would be played on the Tuesday so the Tonbridge vs Witham game would be the one that gets rescheduled. |
|
