A month to go - Dougie Freedman Review

wanderlust wrote:

I think the mods need to start thinking about addressing the issue about users who suggest that those who are unable to attend the game do not have a valid opinion. It's a device that Natasha in particular often uses and unless the mods stamp it out you are going to alienate the large number of users who come to this forum because they live some distance away or abroad.

This is bullshit.

I didn't say people who go to games have a more valid point, I said it's a lot easier for someone who doesn't pay hard cash to back a failing manager. Would you dispute this?

Natasha Whittam wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

I think the mods need to start thinking about addressing the issue about users who suggest that those who are unable to attend the game do not have a valid opinion. 

I said it's a lot easier for someone who doesn't pay hard cash to back a failing manager. Would you dispute this?

Of course. It makes no sense.
And it makes a bunch of assumptions ranging from "attending games is the only way to make a financial contribution to the club" to "paying an entry fee to attend matches influences fans' objectivity more than their emotional investment in the club".
More obviously, it assumes Dougie is failing which for most people remains unproven for now.

wanderlust wrote:
Of course. It makes no sense.
And it makes a bunch of assumptions ranging from "attending games is the only way to make a financial contribution to the club" to "paying an entry fee to attend matches influences fans' objectivity more than their emotional investment in the club".
More obviously, it assumes Dougie is failing which for most people remains unproven for now.

I think you're just taking the piss now, no one misses the point so many times in one conversation.

Let me spell it out for you.

Few would dispute that overall this season the football being played has been less than entertaining, and at some low points absolute garbage. Surely you would accept that watching something crap (football match, film, play etc) is made worse when you've actually paid to watch it.

Let's say we have two Bolton fans. One pays £30 to watch a game, drives an hour to get there, and freezes his balls off sitting down on a plastic seat for 90 minutes. The other switches his laptop on at 2.59pm, makes himself a hot drink and a snack, sits down in his comfy armchair and watches the match on a dodgy free stream.

Both fans witness the same awful game - which one is going to be more pissed off?

For what it's worth, I actually agree in principle with your point, Sweet Cheeks, but your argument is fundamentally flawed for the reasons cited above by Lusty regarding it (your supposition being based on sweeping generalisations and massive assumptions.)

See, this is the point I was making yesterday:

Relevant? Yes, it's about the Wanderers.

Drivel? Yes - massively flawed argument, backed up with sarcasm and that patronising air that posh people adopt when trying to win an argument with us plebs.

Breadman wrote:your supposition being based on sweeping generalisations and massive assumptions

The people happy with Freedman were, in general, those that don't go to the games.

The people wanting him moved on were, in general, those that go the Reebok for home games.

Where is the massive assumption?

The simple fact is that, in the main, those having to pay to watch the shite football have had enough of freedman.

I've just conducted a quick survey to try and prove or disprove your theory.

Of the people questioned, 100% said they hadn't been to the Reebok since the last home game of last season (Blackpool).

When asked "Do you rate Freedman and want him to continue as our manager?", the same 100% said "No, he's a wanker and needs to go."

Whaddya make of them tomatoes......?

Natasha Whittam wrote:

wanderlust wrote:
Of course. It makes no sense.
And it makes a bunch of assumptions ranging from "attending games is the only way to make a financial contribution to the club" to "paying an entry fee to attend matches influences fans' objectivity more than their emotional investment in the club".
More obviously, it assumes Dougie is failing which for most people remains unproven for now.

I think you're just taking the piss now, no one misses the point so many times in one conversation.

Let me spell it out for you.

Few would dispute that overall this season the football being played has been less than entertaining, and at some low points absolute garbage. Surely you would accept that watching something crap (football match, film, play etc) is made worse when you've actually paid to watch it.

Let's say we have two Bolton fans. One pays £30 to watch a game, drives an hour to get there, and freezes his balls off sitting down on a plastic seat for 90 minutes. The other switches his laptop on at 2.59pm, makes himself a hot drink and a snack, sits down in his comfy armchair and watches the match on a dodgy free stream.

Both fans witness the same awful game - which one is the sucker?

You are quite right. I am taking the piss.
Still I think you are stretching the point to suggest that handing over your hard earned dosh and then feeling upset because the match was "absolute garbage" makes you more inclined to blame the manager as opposed to blaming the players, the opposition, the ref, the financial situation the club is in, the perceived lack of value for money, the Board, our bad luck, Phil Darkside or yourself for handing over the money yet again in the full knowledge that you were taking a gamble on what would happen during the game.

I'm not taking the piss - my data stands.

Breadman wrote:I've just conducted a quick survey to try and prove or disprove your theory.

Of the people questioned, 100% said they hadn't been to the Reebok since the last home game of last season (Blackpool).

When asked "Do you rate Freedman and want him to continue as our manager?", the same 100% said "No, he's a wanker and needs to go."

Whaddya make of them tomatoes......?

I'm wondering if a survey of one is statistically significant.... 

Depends on your perspective.

It's 100% significant in our house.

And let's not forget that governments get elected that way all the time -

60m people in the country.

45m on the electoral roll.

Turn out is 30% (15m voters)

38% of them vote Tory.

Therefore, 5.7m people's wishes and opinions translate into the rest of us having to put up with the bastards telling us what to do and how much a pint costs.

5.7m out of 60m.........

We need a revolution.

Two out of every one schizophrenics may disagree with you.