Darlington V Rushall

Open now for discussion of all things Darlo!

Moderators: mikkyx, uncovered

User avatar
Spyman
Posts: 12592
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:04 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Darlington V Rushall

Post by Spyman » Mon Nov 27, 2023 12:24 pm

Darlofan97 wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2023 8:31 pm

And like loan_star has said, Gowling had repeatedly tried to get rid of Sukar before bringing him back once Burton had been recalled/Lawlor got injured.

Similarly, he did this with Tommy Taylor.

Ironic that Gowling is now relying on Sukar who, like you pointed out, is now back in the team & playing well.

You could call that good management. I would call it not having a clue.
I'd call it curcumstances changing and the manager adapting his plans to suit those circumstances, which seems a perfectly sensible thing to do. There's nothing 'ironic' about it.
On Sunday April 29, 2012 at 10:25 pm, Darlo Cockney wrote:Sadly some people have nothing better to do that invent rumours.

We will be playing at the arena again next season - fact.

Quakerz - if you actually attended games and spoke to people you might actually find our facts, rather than spreading s*** on this board.

DC

Quakers2009
Posts: 248
Joined: Wed May 24, 2023 4:37 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Darlington V Rushall

Post by Quakers2009 » Mon Nov 27, 2023 12:35 pm

I’d call it a complete lack of foresight to bring in two centre-halves on 28 day loans whilst offering two from your three permanent centre-halves to other clubs, when the third can’t even play two games in a week.

QUAKERMAN2
Posts: 2802
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 8:43 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Darlington V Rushall

Post by QUAKERMAN2 » Mon Nov 27, 2023 12:44 pm

Quakers2009 wrote:I’d call it a complete lack of foresight to bring in two centre-halves on 28 day loans whilst offering two from your three permanent centre-halves to other clubs, when the third can’t even play two games in a week.
Absolutely agree 100%.

Sent from my SM-A145R using Tapatalk


User avatar
loan_star
Posts: 7070
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:01 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Darlington V Rushall

Post by loan_star » Mon Nov 27, 2023 12:50 pm

Quakers2009 wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2023 12:00 pm

Rowe, Lindley & Ngandu will not be on peanuts in the grand scheme of things - they all were Midlands based upon signing and we are now paying for accommodation for out-of-area players.

Hazel also did not want to leave prior to Gowling's arrival, and you also mention a lack-of-creativity when we sold Kaine Felix to Peterborough Sports & sent Finlay Barnes back to York.

There's no part of the league table which says 'we should have won' - we have played well against two very poor sides but have fallen short because our best chances are falling to Griffiths & Rivers - this is a bi-product of poor decision making/recruitment and ironically those who are playing well/creating chances/scoring goals are Alun's signings - some of whom Gowling has tried to get rid of!

And by the way, Rushall Olympic were missing their very-own NLN top-goalscorer Danny Waldron on Saturday - so that is certainly food for thought.

Regarding Tommy Taylor, in the many appearances he's had for us, I have never once seen him beaten to the ball like that - I think that's the sign of a goalkeeper either being told to be more commanding by the management team or he is listening too much to the know-nouts that are saying he isn't commanding his area enough.
:clap:

I'm sure Rivers was also made available for transfer. Plus the fact we signed Rowe probably meant Griffiths days were numbered too.

User avatar
don'tbuythesun
Posts: 2374
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 12:24 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Darlington V Rushall

Post by don'tbuythesun » Mon Nov 27, 2023 12:53 pm

If Mustoe is 100% injured how come there's no mention of him on the thorough injury update on our club site?

AndyPark
Posts: 12158
Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 3:08 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Darlington

Re: Darlington V Rushall

Post by AndyPark » Mon Nov 27, 2023 1:46 pm

don'tbuythesun wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2023 12:53 pm
If Mustoe is 100% injured how come there's no mention of him on the thorough injury update on our club site?
https://darlingtonfc.co.uk/news/injured-players-update

I'll get the popcorn.

DavidCurriesMullet
Posts: 186
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2022 12:22 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Darlington V Rushall

Post by DavidCurriesMullet » Mon Nov 27, 2023 4:26 pm

[/quote]
Rowe, Lindley & Ngandu will not be on peanuts in the grand scheme of things - they all were Midlands based upon signing and we are now paying for accommodation for out-of-area players.

Hazel also did not want to leave prior to Gowling's arrival, and you also mention a lack-of-creativity when we sold Kaine Felix to Peterborough Sports & sent Finlay Barnes back to York.

There's no part of the league table which says 'we should have won' - we have played well against two very poor sides but have fallen short because our best chances are falling to Griffiths & Rivers - this is a bi-product of poor decision making/recruitment and ironically those who are playing well/creating chances/scoring goals are Alun's signings - some of whom Gowling has tried to get rid of!

And by the way, Rushall Olympic were missing their very-own NLN top-goalscorer Danny Waldron on Saturday - so that is certainly food for thought.

Regarding Tommy Taylor, in the many appearances he's had for us, I have never once seen him beaten to the ball like that - I think that's the sign of a goalkeeper either being told to be more commanding by the management team or he is listening too much to the know-nouts that are saying he isn't commanding his area enough.
[/quote]
They are young players coming from much smaller teams, with no big reputations. They will be on peanuts compared to the majority of the squad. Do they share accommodation, as opposed to travelling? Felix had 0 goals and 0 assists, and didn't want to do the travelling anymore. Barnes scored twice on debut, but then showed no more than Ngandu has in his other appearances. Hazel certainly didn't look happy before Gowling arrived. I don't think he was loving life here by any stretch. I agree, chances aren't falling to goalscorers, but that poor recruitment has been evident for 11 months and wasn't addressed in the summer. Nelson's decision making in getting himself suspended for 3 important games hasn't helped. Shock, horror, Gowling tried to move players on. Part and parcel of football, particularly when you have little resources. Some are now playing, and playing well. Is that because they got a wake up call, and have knuckled down? No-one can say they were playing well beforehand, and were untouchable. As for TT, obviously it's the manager or the fan's fault he made 2 poor decisions on Saturday. I didn't say he'd made that error before - I said he struggles when a decision has to be made. Usually, it's not coming when he should have, this time it was coming when he shouldn't have. Basic issue is the same.

Darlo_Pete
Posts: 14057
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:13 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Darlington V Rushall

Post by Darlo_Pete » Mon Nov 27, 2023 4:34 pm

It's good to see JG being on the pitch looking at the players before the game. AA was never to be seen before the match. I do think that the players are behind JG, they seem to enjoy their pre-match warm ups. It's good to hear that the players are enjoying their training.

LoidLucan
Posts: 4491
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:29 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Darlington V Rushall

Post by LoidLucan » Mon Nov 27, 2023 4:47 pm

What's not so good is the little matter of us winning just 2 games out of 13 under JG, failing to beat most of the very poor teams around us in crunch games, facing a large points gap to a position of safety, quickly knocked out of all the cup competitions, crowds and interest tumbling and recently enduring one of the worst batterings in our history. Apart from that everything else seems to be just fine under the new boss.

The_Natural
Posts: 333
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 3:38 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Darlington V Rushall

Post by The_Natural » Mon Nov 27, 2023 5:00 pm

QUAKERMAN2 wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2023 9:10 pm
loan_star wrote:
Lallacab wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2023 7:25 pm
loan_star wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2023 6:41 pm
CrazyDarlo wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2023 6:34 pm

We’ve got to judge the manager on actual events not completely baseless rumours.
Separate point, let’s look at Sukar, he was poor performing player, particular at Tamworth. He’s taken him out of the team, brought Burton in who helped us get results while he was here. Now Sukar is back in the team and looks rejuvenated. That’s very good management of a player.
Except if Gowling had got his way, Sukar would have been away before Burton was recalled.
For me you’d have Burton in the side all day before Sukur
Agreed, I would. But he was always liable to be recalled so why try and shift out the person you would have to rely on should that happen?
Sukar AND Lees both had very solid games against Warrington and Rushall.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
So Gowling dropped a poorly performing Sukar, replaced him with a better player (Burton) then put him back in the side when that player was no longer available and we are now seeing an improvement

Hard to see what Gowling did wrong here

User avatar
theoriginalfatcat
Posts: 6659
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Darlington V Rushall

Post by theoriginalfatcat » Mon Nov 27, 2023 5:12 pm

The_Natural wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2023 5:00 pm
QUAKERMAN2 wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2023 9:10 pm
loan_star wrote:
Lallacab wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2023 7:25 pm
loan_star wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2023 6:41 pm


Except if Gowling had got his way, Sukar would have been away before Burton was recalled.
For me you’d have Burton in the side all day before Sukur
Agreed, I would. But he was always liable to be recalled so why try and shift out the person you would have to rely on should that happen?
Sukar AND Lees both had very solid games against Warrington and Rushall.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
So Gowling dropped a poorly performing Sukar, replaced him with a better player (Burton) then put him back in the side when that player was no longer available and we are now seeing an improvement

Hard to see what Gowling did wrong here
Well - he didn't do anything wrong, but the A.J.C. have a fixed agenda, they are immovable.

Taylor's bad goalkeeping is now being blamed on others - funny how no other team came in for him.
Profile pic ↗️
Feethams the Panda. 28 Jan 2012.
Now extinct!

Quakers2009
Posts: 248
Joined: Wed May 24, 2023 4:37 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Darlington V Rushall

Post by Quakers2009 » Mon Nov 27, 2023 5:19 pm

They are young players coming from much smaller teams, with no big reputations. They will be on peanuts compared to the majority of the squad. Do they share accommodation, as opposed to travelling? Felix had 0 goals and 0 assists, and didn't want to do the travelling anymore. Barnes scored twice on debut, but then showed no more than Ngandu has in his other appearances. Hazel certainly didn't look happy before Gowling arrived. I don't think he was loving life here by any stretch. I agree, chances aren't falling to goalscorers, but that poor recruitment has been evident for 11 months and wasn't addressed in the summer. Nelson's decision making in getting himself suspended for 3 important games hasn't helped. Shock, horror, Gowling tried to move players on. Part and parcel of football, particularly when you have little resources. Some are now playing, and playing well. Is that because they got a wake up call, and have knuckled down? No-one can say they were playing well beforehand, and were untouchable. As for TT, obviously it's the manager or the fan's fault he made 2 poor decisions on Saturday. I didn't say he'd made that error before - I said he struggles when a decision has to be made. Usually, it's not coming when he should have, this time it was coming when he shouldn't have. Basic issue is the same.
As I said above, this talk of 'spending' £160k is redundant. With that said though, whilst Ngandu, Lindley & Rowe are young players, they'll likely be on £1k between them + plus accommodation - so that's another £30k/£35k on top of Asante's £30k.

It is also highly probable that we made some form of wage contributions to some of the loan signings.

Felix had that return this season (which equalled something ridiculous like only 350 minutes of football) - I'd argue that based on last season's return, he was a player we should have sacrificed one training session for due to the output he may have provided for the rest of the season.

Hazel did not want to leave pre-Gowling. You also bemoan Nelson's red-card but he is another player that Gowling had transfer listed! I'd argue that Simms not being ready/touting of Hazel has created this situation where we are essentially playing Rivers/Salkeld/Hatfield as our 'forwards'. Oh, and yes, Gowling transfer-listed Rivers, too.

Another thing that we also need to recognise is that Gowling tried to implement a 3-5-2 (despite rarely using this at Hereford) which did not work. His early recruitment was based around this yet only a few weeks ago he went public and admitted that the players we have are more suited to a four at the back.

There's a difference between trying to move players on with limited resources to transfer listing four of five players (at least Taylor (?), Sukar, Lees, Nelson & Rivers), bringing in nine new ones (some of whom not good enough), whilst allowing Felix, Barnes & Hazel to all leave.

The_Natural
Posts: 333
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 3:38 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Darlington V Rushall

Post by The_Natural » Mon Nov 27, 2023 5:21 pm

Yes and all these transfer listed players were on fire under Armstrong right ?

That’s why when our fearless leader slunk off we were *checks note* in the relegation places on the back of a record budget !

Quakers2009
Posts: 248
Joined: Wed May 24, 2023 4:37 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Darlington V Rushall

Post by Quakers2009 » Mon Nov 27, 2023 5:30 pm

theoriginalfatcat wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2023 5:12 pm
The_Natural wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2023 5:00 pm
QUAKERMAN2 wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2023 9:10 pm
loan_star wrote:
Lallacab wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2023 7:25 pm


For me you’d have Burton in the side all day before Sukur
Agreed, I would. But he was always liable to be recalled so why try and shift out the person you would have to rely on should that happen?
Sukar AND Lees both had very solid games against Warrington and Rushall.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
So Gowling dropped a poorly performing Sukar, replaced him with a better player (Burton) then put him back in the side when that player was no longer available and we are now seeing an improvement

Hard to see what Gowling did wrong here
Well - he didn't do anything wrong, but the A.J.C. have a fixed agenda, they are immovable.

Taylor's bad goalkeeping is now being blamed on others - funny how no other team came in for him.
Sorry, how do you know that no other team tried to sign Taylor?

Where's your proof?

Also re Sukar, Gowling literally tried to get rid of him - had Sukar or Lees left as per Gowling's wishes then we'd have been in exactly the same situation at the back as we are up-front - EG, playing square-pegs in round-holes.

It's like a member of staff doing their job well after their manager told them that they wanted them gone and didn't have a future at the business - only four weeks later they are now a valued member of staff and wanted :oops:

User avatar
theoriginalfatcat
Posts: 6659
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Darlington V Rushall

Post by theoriginalfatcat » Mon Nov 27, 2023 5:41 pm

Quakers2009 wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2023 5:30 pm
Sorry, how do you know that no other team tried to sign Taylor?

Where's your proof?
Er - we tried to sell him and couldn't.....
Profile pic ↗️
Feethams the Panda. 28 Jan 2012.
Now extinct!

Quakers2009
Posts: 248
Joined: Wed May 24, 2023 4:37 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Darlington V Rushall

Post by Quakers2009 » Mon Nov 27, 2023 5:44 pm

theoriginalfatcat wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2023 5:41 pm
Quakers2009 wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2023 5:30 pm
Sorry, how do you know that no other team tried to sign Taylor?

Where's your proof?
Er - we tried to sell him and couldn't.....
So that's your proof? Completely ignoring any other mitigating circumstances such as DFC rejecting any offers/Taylor rejecting offers/deals falling through?

Darlofan97
Posts: 5678
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:44 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Darlington V Rushall

Post by Darlofan97 » Mon Nov 27, 2023 6:06 pm

loan_star wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2023 12:50 pm

I'm sure Rivers was also made available for transfer. Plus the fact we signed Rowe probably meant Griffiths days were numbered too.
Correct re. Rivers.

I was literally ridiculed when I said Gowling came in & placed a third of the squad on the transfer list.

Good to see this information now come out from well-connected people.

User avatar
theoriginalfatcat
Posts: 6659
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Darlington V Rushall

Post by theoriginalfatcat » Mon Nov 27, 2023 6:19 pm

Quakers2009 wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2023 5:44 pm
theoriginalfatcat wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2023 5:41 pm
Quakers2009 wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2023 5:30 pm
Sorry, how do you know that no other team tried to sign Taylor?

Where's your proof?
Er - we tried to sell him and couldn't.....
So that's your proof? Completely ignoring any other mitigating circumstances such as DFC rejecting any offers/Taylor rejecting offers/deals falling through?
I never said it was "proof" 09. If you want to play that game where's your proof we tried to sell him?

If it's a fair assumption we tried to sell him (people on here reckon it is) then it's a fair assumption that we couldn't because he's still here.

btw your three "mitigating circumstances" are stretching it too. Usually if one party wishes to sell and the other party wishes to buy then progress is made. Where there's a will there's a way - and all that. ;)
Profile pic ↗️
Feethams the Panda. 28 Jan 2012.
Now extinct!

Quakers2009
Posts: 248
Joined: Wed May 24, 2023 4:37 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Darlington V Rushall

Post by Quakers2009 » Mon Nov 27, 2023 6:36 pm

theoriginalfatcat wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2023 6:19 pm
Quakers2009 wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2023 5:44 pm
theoriginalfatcat wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2023 5:41 pm
Quakers2009 wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2023 5:30 pm
Sorry, how do you know that no other team tried to sign Taylor?

Where's your proof?
Er - we tried to sell him and couldn't.....
So that's your proof? Completely ignoring any other mitigating circumstances such as DFC rejecting any offers/Taylor rejecting offers/deals falling through?
I never said it was "proof" 09. If you want to play that game where's your proof we tried to sell him?

If it's a fair assumption we tried to sell him (people on here reckon it is) then it's a fair assumption that we couldn't because he's still here.

btw your three "mitigating circumstances" are stretching it too. Usually if one party wishes to sell and the other party wishes to buy then progress is made. Where there's a will there's a way - and all that. ;)
You are passing something off as fact (that nobody came in for Taylor) based on an assumption.

What an interesting tact to take when you continue to doubt things on this board and accuse people of an agenda - yet you're passing off an assumption as fact to support your TT argument.

Interesting.

Quakers2009
Posts: 248
Joined: Wed May 24, 2023 4:37 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Darlington V Rushall

Post by Quakers2009 » Mon Nov 27, 2023 6:52 pm

Quakers2009 wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2023 5:19 pm
They are young players coming from much smaller teams, with no big reputations. They will be on peanuts compared to the majority of the squad. Do they share accommodation, as opposed to travelling? Felix had 0 goals and 0 assists, and didn't want to do the travelling anymore. Barnes scored twice on debut, but then showed no more than Ngandu has in his other appearances. Hazel certainly didn't look happy before Gowling arrived. I don't think he was loving life here by any stretch. I agree, chances aren't falling to goalscorers, but that poor recruitment has been evident for 11 months and wasn't addressed in the summer. Nelson's decision making in getting himself suspended for 3 important games hasn't helped. Shock, horror, Gowling tried to move players on. Part and parcel of football, particularly when you have little resources. Some are now playing, and playing well. Is that because they got a wake up call, and have knuckled down? No-one can say they were playing well beforehand, and were untouchable. As for TT, obviously it's the manager or the fan's fault he made 2 poor decisions on Saturday. I didn't say he'd made that error before - I said he struggles when a decision has to be made. Usually, it's not coming when he should have, this time it was coming when he shouldn't have. Basic issue is the same.
As I said above, this talk of 'spending' £160k is redundant. With that said though, whilst Ngandu, Lindley & Rowe are young players, they'll likely be on £1k between them + plus accommodation - so that's another £30k/£35k on top of Asante's £30k.

It is also highly probable that we made some form of wage contributions to some of the loan signings.

Felix had that return this season (which equalled something ridiculous like only 350 minutes of football) - I'd argue that based on last season's return, he was a player we should have sacrificed one training session for due to the output he may have provided for the rest of the season.

Hazel did not want to leave pre-Gowling. You also bemoan Nelson's red-card but he is another player that Gowling had transfer listed! I'd argue that Simms not being ready/touting of Hazel has created this situation where we are essentially playing Rivers/Salkeld/Hatfield as our 'forwards'. Oh, and yes, Gowling transfer-listed Rivers, too.

Another thing that we also need to recognise is that Gowling tried to implement a 3-5-2 (despite rarely using this at Hereford) which did not work. His early recruitment was based around this yet only a few weeks ago he went public and admitted that the players we have are more suited to a four at the back.

There's a difference between trying to move players on with limited resources to transfer listing four of five players (at least Taylor (?), Sukar, Lees, Nelson & Rivers), bringing in nine new ones (some of whom not good enough), whilst allowing Felix, Barnes & Hazel to all leave.
Oh, and just to add on Finlay Barnes, that's now two MOTMs, two goals and a Team of the Week since he signed for Scarborough.

lo36789
Posts: 10877
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Darlington V Rushall

Post by lo36789 » Mon Nov 27, 2023 7:38 pm

To be fair our transfer listing of players was a pretty poor effort. We didn't actually send a circular round other clubs who might be interested. Obviously just dependent on word of mouth.

I got the news of Warrington and Scarborough transfer listing players yesterday. I got Chester's last Monday.

We have to be the only club who doesn't transfer list by actually circulating players available for transfer to other clubs...like every other club does.

User avatar
theoriginalfatcat
Posts: 6659
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Darlington V Rushall

Post by theoriginalfatcat » Mon Nov 27, 2023 8:05 pm

Quakers2009 wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2023 6:36 pm
theoriginalfatcat wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2023 6:19 pm
Quakers2009 wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2023 5:44 pm
theoriginalfatcat wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2023 5:41 pm
Quakers2009 wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2023 5:30 pm
Sorry, how do you know that no other team tried to sign Taylor?

Where's your proof?
Er - we tried to sell him and couldn't.....
So that's your proof? Completely ignoring any other mitigating circumstances such as DFC rejecting any offers/Taylor rejecting offers/deals falling through?
I never said it was "proof" 09. If you want to play that game where's your proof we tried to sell him?

If it's a fair assumption we tried to sell him (people on here reckon it is) then it's a fair assumption that we couldn't because he's still here.

btw your three "mitigating circumstances" are stretching it too. Usually if one party wishes to sell and the other party wishes to buy then progress is made. Where there's a will there's a way - and all that. ;)
You are passing something off as fact (that nobody came in for Taylor) based on an assumption.

What an interesting tact to take when you continue to doubt things on this board and accuse people of an agenda - yet you're passing off an assumption as fact to support your TT argument.

Interesting.
I never said it was "a fact". I'm not "passing anything off as a fact"

I said "I had no proof"

I said it was my assumption - based on other people's assumptions that we tried to sell Taylor.

Did you actually read my post? The one you yourself quoted above ⬆️ it's all there.
Profile pic ↗️
Feethams the Panda. 28 Jan 2012.
Now extinct!

User avatar
D_F_C
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 8:43 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Darlington V Rushall

Post by D_F_C » Mon Nov 27, 2023 8:17 pm

darlo reborn wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2023 9:20 pm
Michael Coulsen just been released by Scarborough wants more game time always seems a good goal scorer
Got to be worth a go to the end of the season

Quakers2009
Posts: 248
Joined: Wed May 24, 2023 4:37 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Darlington V Rushall

Post by Quakers2009 » Mon Nov 27, 2023 8:21 pm

theoriginalfatcat wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2023 8:05 pm
Quakers2009 wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2023 6:36 pm
theoriginalfatcat wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2023 6:19 pm
Quakers2009 wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2023 5:44 pm
theoriginalfatcat wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2023 5:41 pm


Er - we tried to sell him and couldn't.....
So that's your proof? Completely ignoring any other mitigating circumstances such as DFC rejecting any offers/Taylor rejecting offers/deals falling through?
I never said it was "proof" 09. If you want to play that game where's your proof we tried to sell him?

If it's a fair assumption we tried to sell him (people on here reckon it is) then it's a fair assumption that we couldn't because he's still here.

btw your three "mitigating circumstances" are stretching it too. Usually if one party wishes to sell and the other party wishes to buy then progress is made. Where there's a will there's a way - and all that. ;)
You are passing something off as fact (that nobody came in for Taylor) based on an assumption.

What an interesting tact to take when you continue to doubt things on this board and accuse people of an agenda - yet you're passing off an assumption as fact to support your TT argument.

Interesting.
I never said it was "a fact". I'm not "passing anything off as a fact"

I said "I had no proof"

I said it was my assumption - based on other people's assumptions that we tried to sell Taylor.

Did you actually read my post? The one you yourself quoted above ⬆️ it's all there.
You said, and I quote - "funny how no other team came in for him".

You do not know this and only when questioned have you admitted that it was an assumption - a lazy one at best.

PS, Gowling trying to get rid of Taylor is not an assumption.

Quakers2009
Posts: 248
Joined: Wed May 24, 2023 4:37 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Darlington V Rushall

Post by Quakers2009 » Mon Nov 27, 2023 8:21 pm

D_F_C wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2023 8:17 pm
darlo reborn wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2023 9:20 pm
Michael Coulsen just been released by Scarborough wants more game time always seems a good goal scorer
Got to be worth a go to the end of the season
I think we're spent up.

quakersam
Posts: 4888
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:35 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: MSG

Re: Darlington V Rushall

Post by quakersam » Mon Nov 27, 2023 9:18 pm

lo36789 wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2023 7:38 pm
To be fair our transfer listing of players was a pretty poor effort. We didn't actually send a circular round other clubs who might be interested. Obviously just dependent on word of mouth.

I got the news of Warrington and Scarborough transfer listing players yesterday. I got Chester's last Monday.

We have to be the only club who doesn't transfer list by actually circulating players available for transfer to other clubs...like every other club does.
Are you surprised given who our football secretary is?
QuakerSam ...Once a Quaker, always a Quaker

User avatar
theoriginalfatcat
Posts: 6659
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Darlington V Rushall

Post by theoriginalfatcat » Mon Nov 27, 2023 10:00 pm

Quakers2009 wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2023 8:21 pm
theoriginalfatcat wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2023 8:05 pm
Quakers2009 wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2023 6:36 pm
theoriginalfatcat wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2023 6:19 pm
Quakers2009 wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2023 5:44 pm

So that's your proof? Completely ignoring any other mitigating circumstances such as DFC rejecting any offers/Taylor rejecting offers/deals falling through?
I never said it was "proof" 09. If you want to play that game where's your proof we tried to sell him?

If it's a fair assumption we tried to sell him (people on here reckon it is) then it's a fair assumption that we couldn't because he's still here.

btw your three "mitigating circumstances" are stretching it too. Usually if one party wishes to sell and the other party wishes to buy then progress is made. Where there's a will there's a way - and all that. ;)
You are passing something off as fact (that nobody came in for Taylor) based on an assumption.

What an interesting tact to take when you continue to doubt things on this board and accuse people of an agenda - yet you're passing off an assumption as fact to support your TT argument.

Interesting.
I never said it was "a fact". I'm not "passing anything off as a fact"

I said "I had no proof"

I said it was my assumption - based on other people's assumptions that we tried to sell Taylor.

Did you actually read my post? The one you yourself quoted above ⬆️ it's all there.
You said, and I quote - "funny how no other team came in for him".

You do not know this and only when questioned have you admitted that it was an assumption - a lazy one at best.

PS, Gowling trying to get rid of Taylor is not an assumption.
I find it hard to take you seriously.

Most things posted on this forum are opinions and assumption. Hardly anything on here can be backed up by hard clinical DarloGramps like facts and "proof". The bottom line is some may share your opinions and assumptions, some may not.

You assume Taylor was put on the transfer list if you like.

You assume that Taylor was put on the transfer list, then lots of offers came in and we turned them all down if you like.

Carry on with your opinion that Taylor made two massive howlers on Saturday because of bad management and "no nought" fans.

Whatever makes you happy.
Profile pic ↗️
Feethams the Panda. 28 Jan 2012.
Now extinct!

Quakers2009
Posts: 248
Joined: Wed May 24, 2023 4:37 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Darlington V Rushall

Post by Quakers2009 » Mon Nov 27, 2023 10:47 pm

theoriginalfatcat wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2023 10:00 pm
You assume Taylor was put on the transfer list if you like.
I am not assuming that.
You assume that Taylor was put on the transfer list, then lots of offers came in and we turned them all down if you like.
Again, I'm not assuming, nor did I say 'lots of offers came in and we turned them all down'. I was replying to your post which you claimed that no clubs came in for him.
Carry on with your opinion that Taylor made two massive howlers on Saturday because of bad management and "no nought" fans.
Again, I didn't say that.

You can continue to make things up if you wish.

User avatar
don'tbuythesun
Posts: 2374
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 12:24 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Darlington V Rushall

Post by don'tbuythesun » Mon Nov 27, 2023 10:52 pm

Andy, how was the popcorn? I went to the pub.

User avatar
theoriginalfatcat
Posts: 6659
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Darlington V Rushall

Post by theoriginalfatcat » Mon Nov 27, 2023 11:10 pm

09. Take a look at your post from 12pm today, it’s there for all to see.

I’m not continuing with this.
Profile pic ↗️
Feethams the Panda. 28 Jan 2012.
Now extinct!

Post Reply