GlamourBaws

Spoke to the highlights guy there. He actually included the 2nd half in full in the highlights, minus all the time camelon players wasted. The 3 mins were all that was left.

Stopping us playing - fine. Stopping anyone playing by constantly wasting time is very different.

Could have... aye, fair enough. If my auntie had baws and aw that... Should have? Away and take a running jump. Absolutely honking tactics all 2nd half and think that merits taking a point. Embarrassing.

Gotcha. It was when you mentioned swelling and running away I got confused with Harvey's quick exit, and his rid neck. Hope Fee makes a recovery.

Is this Harvey you are referring to with running away?

I'll be honest. I popped in here just to see the inevitable meltdown from AlanCamelonFan and I wasn't disappointed... The Camelon tactics in the 2nd half got them just what they deserved... sweet FA. It started so quickly in the 2nd half that it was clearly a HT instruction to waste time at every opportunity. It was pretty pathetic to be honest, and if Harvey got a bit pissy that someone pointed this out, then he needs his head looking at. I have zero issue with a team being professional and trying to see a game out, but doing it for 45 mins solid is turgid, anti football, pish. On a different note, I hope the goalscorer is OK. Didn't see how he hurt himself, but it didn't look great. I hope Arnie recovers from the chronic cramp as well.

A bit quiet in here. Still, I'm sure something interesting will happen soon that'll be worth chatting about.

Ye ragin' aye?

Didn't think I'd ever write this in reply to you... but spot on.

We need to drop the Braddo comparison. The team were underperforming with a squad he signed. The amount of times I overheard a half time explosion, with zero response, was enough evidence that his time was up. I really wish it was more successful as I liked mark and paul, but they are gone and not coming back so we may as give up the weekly comparison as its fucking turgid. Brown is dealing with what is left, which is hardly a great side. His changes wont happen overnight bit I wouldn't expect the same amount of loyalty which has shown in the past to a squad which has underperformed for years. Brown clearly knows what he wants to do, and will be supported to do just that. A lot of our chances today came from being more direct in our play than we have been previously - i suspect this will continue and be more effective as time goes on. On today specifically, I thought the rose did enough to win that game. And we would have done most weeks. Their goal was a scuffed deflection. The tie burner just had one of those days I'm afraid. Onwards and upwards.

it has surely got to be the height of the lights that is the problem here? Any ball above head height has the ability to be lost in one of the string of fairy lights along the enclosure. The marvelous thing with cameras is that you can do with them what you like... make it look darker / lighter, maximise light etc. To that end, I suggest that the photos are hardly impartial if put up by either Camelon or the visiting team. No matter what, Camelon will likely have some work to do here.

which came from him being fouled.... cutting in from the left

You are right here... though there are a few distinctions / clarifications to be made though i suspect this is what you are getting at. Celtic, as an example, are publicly listed, and thus accounts need to be made public to the stock exchange - fans and non-fans alike cane see these. Privately owned clubs do not need to publish accounts in such detail, though they need to disclose to Companies House I believe. LRFC are not a publicly listed company, and are member owned. As a member owned club, the members get the details of the accounts at the AGM. The accounts are also available for a period of time after this for viewing in the club along with the AGM minutes, on production of your membership card. This is the difference though - "fans" dont get sight of them unless they are a member of the club and i would suspect that this is the same for most clubs at our level. What counts as a member differs greatly from club to club, depending on their constitution. What wont show on these accounts, no matter the size of the club or how it is owned or incorporated, is any cash / off book payments (see my post above) - whether that is Rangers using an EBT to pay "loans" or a Junior / EOS club paying cash under the table. Both situations, would give rise to a tax bill if uncovered. Therefore seeing the true size of the budget, is difficult, if not impossible. Any real attempt to do this is a futile exercise, and all that is left is a "my dad is bigger than your did" type conjecture based argument.

this debate on budgets and what teams pay needs to consider what is paid over and under the counter. Some have alluded to it above in some ways, but it isn't always one approach or the other. Direct comparison of budgets at this level is almost impossible to do... Imagine a player on a 40% tax bracket. £100 a week at teams who do it all above board = £60. If that same player can get the "minimum wage" + £100 under the counter in cash, then where is he going to go? Even on a 20% tax bracket, there is incentive to take the cash. This approach sees teams keeping their paperwork in order for licencing and accounting purposes, but attracting "pricier" players at the same time. I suppose they are working on the basis that it is ok, as long as they don't get caught - which is very unlikely they will. The cash payment wouldnt show on any accounts, or bank statements, but the player and club are both happy. I don't know of any teams that do this (I'll stay away from conjecture on this front as there is too much on here) but I will almost guarantee that some do it. Whether someone gets caught doing it is another matter, but if they did, it would likely be disastrous for that club.

Being on the committee is about making decisions. Much like your constantly negative pish, some will like those decisions and some wont. What I cant tie up is someone saying "this is shite" EVERY WEEK... then moaning when someone makes a decision to address that. Perhaps you make it "more than some*" as there is 2 personalities available to attend? Mark and Paul maybe deserved more time, but we aren't privy to everything that goes on. Ultimately, I'll trust the committee to make the right decision. * not sure who this is aimed at by the way