Minty

lol, come on Alps, those 'morons' (no need for that, as you keep telling us) are simply asking questions because the whole premise for the thread is that the Ramirez money could/would have been spent on a defender if we hadn't signed Ramirez. Do you think that is the case? Simple enough question, and all part of what the forum is here for after all.

I have been a critic of some of Cortese's decisions in the past, but I don't think any were necessarily 'petty'... I am quite sure there were business cases behind most if not all his operational decisions. This issue would appear to be different and would appear to be more down to personalities, in which case I would agree it seems petty, if that is indeed the basis for it. But as Smirking says, without people actually sharing information that they have, all we have to go on is what the individuals themselves say, and that's not a lot. Let's not be silly about it, no one is expecting any DVD from him, and I doubt he's trying to 'extinguish' Matt or anyone else, rather he just wants to concentrate on the future. I happen to agree that our past is an important part of who we are and our journey so I think the contributions of past players and staff should be recognised and respected, while NC perhaps disagrees with this, but there's a difference between not recognising them, and trying to extinguish them. Anyway, as I said before, just by continuing this discussion it validates it so I'm going to leave it there I think.

Not directly disruptive no. I think this is being overplayed a bit and I'm probably contributing to that myself. And let's be honest, beyond this thread, it probably doesn't warrant a mention from many other fans just now. But sometimes it's the cumulative effect of little things like this that build up in peoples minds, in the media and other places, and doubts creep in. I'm not going to bait those with strong views either way any further... I agree with you, but clearly those with polar views are not willing to change them, and MLT/NC is entirely in the wrong no matter what we say, so probably best left alone now I feel.

The contributions that both have made to this club are quite different. I still don't get why some feel the need to match them up against each other to decide who is 'more important' or not. This should not be a competition, and if both truly have the best intentions for our club then they should, IMO, recognise the potential bad press these kind of things bring to the club and sort it out. Or drop it. It's not exactly the biggest deal in the world so I'm not sure it's worth the strength of feeling some seem to have, but I guess we have to have something to go on about in the International break!

We cannot *choose* to leave out any player over 21, to leave a space for any other possible signing. We have to include all eligible players in the list if there is space to do so. I thought you'd know that.

Quite a significant shift to right with many of these appointments it seems, to facilitate a 'growth at any cost' policy IMO... the new Environment Minister for example, looks like someone who'll quite happily support a third Heathrow runway and continue the relaxation of planning laws.

I may be wrong, but I doubt derry is suggesting developing specific new discriminatory policies that relate to specific items of religious significance, more that any existing and lawful policies which exist should be able to be applied without fear of being challenged on these kinds of grounds.

Absolutely. But we, as fans with a bit of common sense and nous, recognise this, whilst the Skate few try to scaremonger when they should really be concentrating on their own mess of a club.

We need to remember that he's only 21... he has much to learn, but as long as he has talent then I'm sure he will improve under Adkins' tutelage.

While this article clearly talks about how much Ramirez' tracking back and defensive work have improved: http://soccernet.espn.go.com/columns/story/_/id/1150787/gotta:-alessandro-diamanti-needs-to-shine-for-bologna?&cc=5739

Fact is, the fans of ANY club that is in private hands must accept that their owner(s), have 'little or no accountability on making company policy or budget decisions' and 'hold all the power'. Fans will continually judge their owner(s) based on the information available to them, and the progress of the club. IF fans feel an owner is not acting in the best interests of the club then they act in whatever way they feel is most appropriate, from boycotts and demonstrations, to trying to set up takeover bids, to writing blogs and whining about it to the Internet. That's life. Ask fans of Liverpool, Man Utd, Newcastle and everyone else who has had a beef with their owner in recent years... We're in a decent position, most fans think that Cortese is doing a decent job, and no one is blind to think things are perfect or that we need never worry again. But at least we can judge the situation with the benefit of experience and knowing that our fans, whilst eager for success that Liebherr's investment will hopefully bring, are not blinkered to the consequences of the apparent 'success at any cost' strategy that our 'friends' down the road enjoyed without question when winning the FA Cup.

Read the whole thread alps, and especially my posts. The uniform codes in question talk about not wearing any jewellery, they do NOT discriminate about what jewellery that may be... as I suggested earlier, a locket containing a picture of a loved-one is prohibited just the same as a cross.

Not lecturing at all. 'Some people just read what they want.' I'm merely making a suggestion. If don't want to take on board well-meaning constructive feedback, so be it. I'll leave it now.

Maybe you also occasionally need to think about the way you put things then... if so many people are telling you that you come across as being negative, then it can't always be the fault of the reader...

Given that your implication is that we did not sign any other defenders as a result of this 'working style', I interpret that as being negative. Sorry if that's not the case but it certainly comes across that way.

Each to their own alps, I would suggest however that the only basis for that is your own negative interpretation of events, which you're perfectly entitled to but I can't see the logic in it.

We clearly negotiated and signed Yoshi and Mayuka around the same time, had held negotiations with Buttner previously... I would suggest that as a professional football club we're more than capable. But this thread, and the OP in particular, are focusing on the money, hence my simple question.

Personally, no, because it again makes assumptions and implications that his signing was in some way a priority over defensive players, something there is no evidence for. That is the crux of this: Some people seem to have this notion that because we did not sign the desired defensive players, that we did not 'prioritise' it in some way, when there is zero evidence to suggest this was the case, and Adkins himself made clear that he wanted to sign defenders.

I think it was of a suggestion that perhaps you've not been the most patient and supportive fan in the face of adversity in the past?

Good man, although you'll probably have the same outcome next year as so many companies focus too much on winning new business, when if they focused more on retaining business, it would deliver far better long term prospects, for both them and their customers. There are some good ones out there. I'm sure of it. I just haven't found one yet.

A simple answer to the question: 'Do you think the signing of a CB was in some way prevented/denied because of the money spent on Ramirez?' is all many of us are asking. And if the answer is yes, how did you come to this conclusion?

Good start today for Hants, put Essex in and currently got them at 47-4 after 18 overs: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/counties/hampshire/latest_scorecard/default.stm

Especially as twitter users are likely to be predominantly of a younger age group...

This was a decision made in line with a uniform policy, and would apply to anyone wearing any kind of chain around their neck. The key point therefore is that this decision was NOT made based on her religion or religious beliefs, but on the consistent application of a uniform policy.

The Royal College of Nursing's own guidelines state: