Bulls Banter - Mr Jamie Pitman

fishlock4ever
God

member is offline

Joined: Nov 2007
Gender: Male

Posts: 7,658
Karma: -200

Re: Mr Jamie Pitman
« Reply #45 on Mar 2, 2012, 1:02pm »

Mar 2, 2012, 12:55pm, ExLandlord wrote:

it's insulting, classless and not how fans should behave

..yet it's perfectly correct for you to do it to The Chairman?

saying the chairman is clueless and saying someone is a parasite is not the same.

You continue to say nothing detrimental- it speaks volumes about your agenda!

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

fishlock4ever
God

member is offline

Joined: Nov 2007
Gender: Male

Posts: 7,658
Karma: -200

Re: Mr Jamie Pitman
« Reply #46 on Mar 2, 2012, 1:06pm »

Mar 2, 2012, 12:56pm, nailswortholdbull wrote:

Just an addon to the abuse comments.
I said earlier that JP, for all his faults, doesn't deserve the abuse he gets on here, but I have always felt that he's never given less than 100% fpr the club.
Contrast that with Sean Canham, who has done very little for the Club, is (probably) on a wage packet larger than Jamie's, who hasn't had to work too hard for that money, and, currently, is making no contribution WHATSOEVER to our wellbeing, and then tell me..........Do you still believe that JP is the villain of the piece?

I think Canham would have liked a chance to give 100% though. Especially as none of our stikers can score

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

enforcerbull
God

member is offline

[avatar]

ee by gum 6th place

Joined: May 2010
Gender: Male

Posts: 5,154
Location: bill wiggins duck pond
Karma: 30

Re: Mr Jamie Pitman
« Reply #47 on Mar 2, 2012, 1:12pm »

I think Canham would have liked a chance to give 100% though. Especially as none of our stikers can score[/quote]

Are you saying that Canham was a good 'stiker'

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

Politicians and nappies have one thing in common,
They should both be changed regularly and for the same reason

jonny
Guest

Re: Mr Jamie Pitman
« Reply #48 on Mar 2, 2012, 1:13pm »

Mar 2, 2012, 1:06pm, fishlock4ever wrote:

I think Canham would have liked a chance to give 100% though. Especially as none of our stikers can score

Indeed. The nature of the business is that the buck stops with the manager. *

Whether you rate Canham or not, his "crime" was to honour the contract he was offered and see it out. If he wasn't applying himself in training, keeping himself fit and making himself available for matchday and other contractual obligations he'd have been fired.

* Absolutely in no way condoning the abuse he has received.

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

thechangingman
Guest

Re: Mr Jamie Pitman
« Reply #49 on Mar 2, 2012, 1:15pm »

Mar 2, 2012, 12:52pm, fishlock4ever wrote:

Mar 2, 2012, 12:44pm, dirtydog wrote:

As one of Pitman's fiercest critics, I find this late attempt at a "we love you Jamie really" thread pretty embarrassing.

I have nothing against Pitman as a person, it's his refusal to accept that he is way out of his depth and that by continuing to sponge off the club instead of resigning he is effectively acting as a Parasite.

I agree with Corve - Petersball may be awful to watch but when Gary first took over, we won 3 out of 4 and also got a creditable point at Swindon.

It's obvious to everyone that over the last few games, Gary has been told not to get involved so that shocking run of 3 points out of 21 is solely Pitman's fault.

If Pitman and his cronies leave and Peters is put in sole charge, we at least have a fighting chance of survival. With Pitman we have none.

it's not a love in at all. We all want him to leave. But for people like you to call him a parasite it's insulting, classless and not how fans should behave. Especially for a man that has been associated with this club for so many years.

Of course I appreciate you are probably a WUM.

No shit, sherlock!

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

fishlock4ever
God

member is offline

Joined: Nov 2007
Gender: Male

Posts: 7,658
Karma: -200

Re: Mr Jamie Pitman
« Reply #50 on Mar 2, 2012, 1:21pm »

We all know that Canham and Kovacs were not dropped for footballing reasons.

I imagine it was in Pitman's interests to drop them in hope of them leaving and being able to invest in players he wanted........the whole thing was so drawn out that JP never really got that chance.

I still think Pitman hasnt been able to put his own stamp on the squad- that would have only really begun to happen next season- and that isnt the case now if Peters has sorted out all the new deals and contracts.

You dont buy someone like Delroy, declare Fleetwood the focial point of the team and then let him go without external pressure that goes beyond managing a football club.

Indeed the lack of support JP has been provided and the lack of money we have to sack him is why he is still on the payroll. DK knows he has failed JP so I am not suprised he is reluctant to sack him.

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

spookytooth
Guest

Re: Mr Jamie Pitman
« Reply #51 on Mar 2, 2012, 1:24pm »

Mar 2, 2012, 1:21pm, fishlock4ever wrote:

We all know that Canham and Kovacs were not dropped for footballing reasons.

I imagine it was in Pitman's interests to drop them in hope of them leaving and being able to invest in players he wanted........the whole thing was so drawn out that JP never really got that chance.

I still think Pitman hasnt been able to put his own stamp on the squad- that would have only really begun to happen next season- and that isnt the case now if Peters has sorted out all the new deals and contracts.

You dont buy someone like Delroy, declare Fleetwood the focial point of the team and then let him go without external pressure that goes beyond managing a football club.

Indeed the lack of support JP has been provided and the lack of money we have to sack him is why he is still on the payroll. DK knows he has failed JP so I am not suprised he is reluctant to sack him.

You know nothing about football.

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

nailswortholdbull
God

member is offline

Living near a town populated, entirely, by FGR strikers........

Joined: Oct 2007
Gender: Male

Posts: 2,639
Location: Nailsworth
Karma: -46

Re: Mr Jamie Pitman
« Reply #52 on Mar 2, 2012, 1:27pm »

If not for footballing reasons, then why, Fishy?
I do share the view though, that why sideline Canham, and HAVE to pay his wages, without finding a role for him. He seemed at least as capable as some of the other socalled strikers we've had through the doors in the past 2 years....................

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

If I have failed to offend you with my comments, stick around. Your time will come...............

fishlock4ever
God

member is offline

Joined: Nov 2007
Gender: Male

Posts: 7,658
Karma: -200

Re: Mr Jamie Pitman
« Reply #53 on Mar 2, 2012, 1:28pm »

Mar 2, 2012, 1:24pm, spookytooth wrote:

Mar 2, 2012, 1:21pm, fishlock4ever wrote:

We all know that Canham and Kovacs were not dropped for footballing reasons.

I imagine it was in Pitman's interests to drop them in hope of them leaving and being able to invest in players he wanted........the whole thing was so drawn out that JP never really got that chance.

I still think Pitman hasnt been able to put his own stamp on the squad- that would have only really begun to happen next season- and that isnt the case now if Peters has sorted out all the new deals and contracts.

You dont buy someone like Delroy, declare Fleetwood the focial point of the team and then let him go without external pressure that goes beyond managing a football club.

Indeed the lack of support JP has been provided and the lack of money we have to sack him is why he is still on the payroll. DK knows he has failed JP so I am not suprised he is reluctant to sack him.

You know nothing about football.

what dont you agree with?

1) KAC were not dropped for footballing reasons
2) one minute fleets is focal, the next he's gone- factors beyond the team?
3) DK has no money to sack JP
4) Pitman hasnt had the funds to sign his own players- indeed GP has done the recrutiment

Tell me what you dont agree with so I can learn!

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

spookytooth
Guest

Re: Mr Jamie Pitman
« Reply #54 on Mar 2, 2012, 1:30pm »

Mar 2, 2012, 1:28pm, fishlock4ever wrote:

Mar 2, 2012, 1:24pm, spookytooth wrote:

You know nothing about football.

what dont you agree with?

1) KAC were not dropped for footballing reasons
2) one minute fleets is focal, the next he's gone- factors beyond the team?
3) DK has no money to sack JP
4) Pitman hasnt had the funds to sign his own players- indeed GP has done the recrutiment

Tell me what you dont agree with so I can learn!

I don't agree with so-called fans saying they don't need to go to games because their dad goes on their behalf!

When you actually go to games regularly I will allow you to have an opinion.

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

fishlock4ever
God

member is offline

Joined: Nov 2007
Gender: Male

Posts: 7,658
Karma: -200

Re: Mr Jamie Pitman
« Reply #55 on Mar 2, 2012, 1:33pm »

Mar 2, 2012, 1:30pm, spookytooth wrote:

Mar 2, 2012, 1:28pm, fishlock4ever wrote:

what dont you agree with?

1) KAC were not dropped for footballing reasons
2) one minute fleets is focal, the next he's gone- factors beyond the team?
3) DK has no money to sack JP
4) Pitman hasnt had the funds to sign his own players- indeed GP has done the recrutiment

Tell me what you dont agree with so I can learn!

I don't agree with so-called fans saying they don't need to go to games because their dad goes on their behalf!

When you actually go to games regularly I will allow you to have an opinion.

Fair point, but I dont go because I was at the playoff final. Not because my dad goes.

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

rhymenocerous
Guest

Re: Mr Jamie Pitman
« Reply #56 on Mar 2, 2012, 1:34pm »

Mar 2, 2012, 12:56pm, nailswortholdbull wrote:

Contrast that with Sean Canham, who has done very little for the Club, is (probably) on a wage packet larger than Jamie's, who hasn't had to work too hard for that money

Slight tangent I know, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if Canham was earning more than JP. Wasn't the average wage of a L2 manager around the £30k mark?

I'd be shocked if JP was earning as much as the "average manager" in this division so theoretically he should be a snip to get rid compared to some of the signings we have had to pay off - the problem is that if you sack JP, you have to sack the majority of the management team and GP.

Oh, and Fishy - as you mention above that you don't think DK can afford to pay JP off, is that because you feel he just doesn't have much £££ in the first place or that he has over-spent on the team already?

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

ExLandlord
God

member is offline

[avatar]

This could take five years to put right.

Joined: Mar 2011
Gender: Male

Posts: 7,994
Location: In Limbo
Karma: -641

Re: Mr Jamie Pitman
« Reply #57 on Mar 2, 2012, 1:37pm »

1) If JP had considered they were good enough, he would have played them regardless of salaries. He clearly didn't therefore the reason has to be a footballing one.

2) That "build a team round him" comment was made on the basis of last season's efforts. It didn't happen this season.

3) Maybe.

4) Clist, Facey, Heath, Stam, Arquin, Dalibard, Williams, Hoult.

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

The older you get, the more important it is to not act your age.

There's 10 types of people - those that understand binary and those that don't.

Parka – diagonally parked in a parallel universe. FACT

fishlock4ever
God

member is offline

Joined: Nov 2007
Gender: Male

Posts: 7,658
Karma: -200

Re: Mr Jamie Pitman
« Reply #58 on Mar 2, 2012, 1:41pm »

Mar 2, 2012, 1:34pm, rhymenocerous wrote:

Mar 2, 2012, 12:56pm, nailswortholdbull wrote:

Contrast that with Sean Canham, who has done very little for the Club, is (probably) on a wage packet larger than Jamie's, who hasn't had to work too hard for that money

Slight tangent I know, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if Canham was earning more than JP. Wasn't the average wage of a L2 manager around the £30k mark?

I'd be shocked if JP was earning as much as the "average manager" in this division so theoretically he should be a snip to get rid compared to some of the signings we have had to pay off - the problem is that if you sack JP, you have to sack the majority of the management team and GP.

Oh, and Fishy - as you mention above that you don't think DK can afford to pay JP off, is that because you feel he just doesn't have much £££ in the first place or that he has over-spent on the team already?

I think he's quickly learnt that football is an expensive business and he doesnt want to use anymore of his own cash to do the right thing but the club doesnt have the cash to do it either......

probably regretting letting Davey have free reign on transfers, agents fees and contracts. Too much money spent in the wrong places- that doesnt make him a good chairman, it makes him a poor chairman*

** (in regards to these points of course- he has done well with the stalite rooms and maybe the leases, even though the starlite rooms were funded by other investors and the leases were funded by money left in the bank by GT and player sales recruited by GT)***

*** maybe he hasnt done all that well in that regard either.

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

bullfinch
Senior Member

member is offline

Joined: Oct 2011
Gender: Male

Posts: 388
Karma: -11

Re: Mr Jamie Pitman
« Reply #59 on Mar 2, 2012, 1:54pm »

Mar 1, 2012, 8:26pm, Barney Rubble wrote:

Mar 1, 2012, 8:18pm, generalosma wrote:

No guarantee of immediate success with a new manager. What if he actually does keep us up?, against all the odds?

This thing with hating the manager, I don't get it. I shop at Sainsbury's but I dont stand outside reception waiting to spit at him and call him a wanaker if the breads a bit dry.

Save the season first, the witch-hunt will come during the summer....

If he stays, I will back the side on saturday, and every day, don't hate the manger, don't hate anyone as it happens. And if he does keep us up, I will be thrilled, but that won't change the facts, it will just show what a p!55-poor league this one is this season.
And I don't see this as a witch-hunt, just wanting the best we can achieve with our resources. And with JP, we're not. And I doubt ever will.

TBF I don't think anyone really hates JP, but we get so frustrated because we know he's not good enough to be HUFC manager, and it appears that nothing is being done to rectify this. But with the right person in charge I really do believe we can remain in L2, with Jamie in charge I don't see it IMHO. I think, and it is only my opinion, that he's lost the respect of the players and that can't help the situation.

« Last Edit: Mar 2, 2012, 2:02pm by bullfinch »

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged