Just as well we’re probably safe…
If you’re one of those people who have been caught out by the clocks going forward, don’t worry – your editor went to bed last night thinking he’d overslept on the couch at 0330.
There’s a joke about people being late this morning and us losing 3-0 at Stockport yesterday, but I’m struggling to find one.
I didn’t go for many reasons (going to Lincoln away instead) but judging by SS+ I don’t think it was a particularly fair reflection.
Mind you, I knew it was going to be a bad afternoon when SS+ didn’t work after I pressed the red button, leaving me to “enjoy” Salford v Franchise…
By the time I managed to sort it out** we were 1-0 down, missing some good chances and their goalie ending up being MOTM.
** – is it me or are Sky Q multiroom boxes shit? The connection to them is patchy at best and I’ve got to reboot everything this morning again.
People think those buying Firesticks are just doing it for the cost per year. They’re also a lot more reliable…
Just like Cardiff away, the main difference between us and Stockport was the quality of the finishing.
To our credit, we kept going, and on another day we would have got a draw (or better). We’ll play worse and get a point at least.
That we’re missing not only Stevens but Browne, Tilley, and Hippo as well would be a challenge for many clubs in this division.
So I’m not as pissed off as I could be over the performance. Even if Sky Sports News suggested Stockport were “comfortable” (they weren’t).
Who knows what it would been like if we’d gone into half time just a goal down, though? Almost making it 1-1 then finding ourselves 0-2 down thirty seconds later was a kick in the danglies too far.
On second thoughts, Stockport would have probably come out firing and scored two quick goals in less than five minutes.
Us? Well, when Johnson and Kai Jennings (who is back with us and almost scored a thunderbolt) and whoever else was denied just couldn’t find the net, you basically have to write the game off.
Their third goal wasn’t really deserved, just like Cardiff’s four goals against us weren’t either, but it does sum us up.
We’re 90% good enough, but the remaining 10% lets us down.
Our missing players might have got us something. The likes of Hackford, Asiimwe, Bugiel and Nelson have good games, but they just couldn’t finish yesterday.
Elsewhere, you have to think we’re seeing the last of Jake Reeves, and one wonders about Lewis too.
Will we see Bishop back sooner rather than later? McDonnell is okay, but one suspects our other keeper is nursing a longer term injury.
It’s annoying, and you hope that we get a much better rub of the green on Good Friday against the champions-elect.
Of course, it would be typical of us to get the double over Lincoln…
As sure as night follows day, the usual chapter of Anxiety Anonymous are looking down towards Exeter and convincing themselves that the Grecians and everyone else below us will go on amazing runs, and we’ll lose every game 3-0.
Most people aren’t worried about even remotely touching the Relegation Dogfight (TM) though, and a couple more points will make all but the most paranoid Womble relax.
Being safe at Easter has always been your editor’s aim this season, and we’re on track for that even with the result yesterday.
We’d have to have about 3/4 really, really bad results matchday wise to be in trouble. And plenty of teams below us need to play each other.
Yesterday wasn’t great, but most of us expected that kind of scoreline. But to be fair, the performance was a lot more promising than we might have believed at 14h59…
This week saw one of the rare times in AFCW’s existence where what happened on a proverbial piece of paper mattered as much as a goal on grass.
That’s the 50.01 vote, which went the way I hoped it would. Not just the result, but the breakdown of it too.
I have to admit, the turnout was always going to be a bit of a worry, especially as there were plenty on social media saying they’d voted against or even just outright not voting.
Maybe the AFCW internet community is not the most accurate barometer…?
The actual numbers, as decided by actual people, tell their own story. I can well believe it was the biggest ever DT vote by participants.
While there’s a certain 3000 people who don’t seem to engage in, well, anything DT related – as many people voted to change the club’s direction as went to games at KM.
I’ve seen a couple of suggestions this week that the reason it got such an overwhelming backing was because the decision makers recommended it, and it would have been a different story if not.
Leaving aside that it’s insinuating our fanbase doesn’t have a mind of its own, and is incapable of seeing the way the football finances wind is blowing – if voters felt that strongly about keeping the current ownership model, they just wouldn’t have turned out.
Or even just voted against the proposals.
This is probably more down to the punters knowing that the current ownership model is dead, and that we simply need to change ourselves.
I’m not going to do a writeup of 50.01 until the second vote passes, although I have got something lined up.
But there’s something about this second vote that confuses me. I thought, in all seriousness, that the second vote needed was everyone having to physically/electronically vote again.
Which did make me think what would happen if people forgot about it and it went below the threshold needed. Then what?
But in the email they sent this week about it, there was this. I quote:
If you have already voted you do not need to do anything further for SGM Two: your vote has been recorded.
So, does that mean if you’ve voted already you don’t need to do anything else? I’m sure I’ve read that correctly, so the second vote is a formality?
Your editor struggles with constitutional stuff at the best of times, and while I appreciate this is a Restricted Action and needs much more security, surely there should be an actual second vote just to make sure?
I’m sure I’m missing something. But then, I don’t understand what goes through the minds of the bureaucrats and constitutional wallahs a lot of the time.
Some of them get very excited about sub-clauses and interpretation of what’s been written down, to the point where they need it laminated.
One of the big problems I’ve always had with the DT is that it seems over-bureaucratic and not for people who want to actually make decisions. And this is for something that’s genuinely important.
I can’t remember the Back In Two Ticks campaign, but I’m sure that needed people to vote a second time. Maybe they didn’t…
We’ll see what happens, although I think I’m the only person who’s noticed.
Once it’s confirmed (which I think it will be even if there’s a second actual vote), there’ll be plenty to say. But somebody made a comment elsewhere after this week’s vote that still sticks in my mind.
I talked about insinuations of those who voted for the proposals en masse, and there was something else mentioned too.
It was somebody of a certain vintage saying that those who remember 2000-02 are probably in the minority these days.
The premise of that comment was along the lines of, if more people were around at that time voted in this, it wouldn’t have passed.
Given the numbers in favour, and against, I think that particular demographic is no more “ideological” than anyone else.
Sure, the ones who seem most against 50.01 are in that 55-65 year old age range, but even then I’m not sure if they’re a majority in that cohort.
Plenty from the late OPL and Selhurst days were in support of selling equity, and some of them were as enthusiastic as anyone.
People generally don’t just see this move towards a new ownership model as “losing” the club, but instead just adapting to life in 2026.
We have different challenges now, the football industry is a lot different from 25 years ago, and we’re just simply living in what it is, and not what they want it to be.
If anything was to fail in this vote, the 15% maximum restriction was it. But that too passed with flying colours.
We’ll wait for the second vote before we can start inviting REMBE for Vimto and nibbles, but maybe yesterday’s result illustrates why this week’s vote went how it did?
After all, imagine we were able to afford a bit more quality in the squad…