Carling Cup 3rd Round - Burnley Away

[BWFC_Insane]

As much as it would be silly to suggest everything is all rosy and great...

Our league start has been solid. And OC is clearly affecting a change in the way we play, we're playing more football, last night even this was very evident.

Most fans wanted this type of football.

Should he keep us up and this lets say more "expansive" style continues to build then surely thats job done?

Not sure there is massive room for complaints right now.

[CAPSLOCK]

City have lost?

[thebish]

City have lost?

aye...

and L'pool are losing to N'pton (the shame eh?)

and - cripes! - Toon beat Chelsea 4-3

[Lord Kangana]

Just to back CAPS up of sorts:

Link

Bolton pair Stuart Holden and Fabrice Muamba have won more tackles than anyone else so far this season apart from Blackburn's Michel Salgado.

Says to me they are either immense at tackling......OR they are making more because they are more exposed than any other midfielders. For one - fair enough we have a good tackler, for both to be in there you do wonder...

I hate to call that conclusion bollox just like that, but you know when something is, you've got to say.

Allardyce regularly pulled the stat out of the hat that Campo, Speed and Nolan were covering more ground winning more tackles, winning more headers etc etc etc.. Not really an overrun midfield, was it? So why run around so much?

I could accept if you'd concluded we are crap at retaining possession, that would follow, but if it was any other team they'd be lauded for it. I sometimes wish Megson would return for a game, just so we could see the progress we've made.

[CAPSLOCK]

Whats Megson go to do with it?

You really are obsessed

If you can't see that Muamba and Holden can't play this game week in week out....

Well, I'd not be surprised

[hisroyalgingerness]

Ok lets roll back because you're focusing a lot of your argument on Fab and Holden.

We could still have put out a better starting XI.
We could still have made some changes earlier in the second half.

Both of which without compromising Sunday's game. Little lambs get a week off anyway in another week, after West Brom game.

[BWFC_Insane]

Ok lets roll back because you're focusing a lot of your argument on Fab and Holden.

We could still have put out a better starting XI.
We could still have made some changes earlier in the second half.

Both of which without compromising Sunday's game. Little lambs get a week off anyway in another week, after West Brom game.

A lot of them won't. Its a squad game. Virtually every premiership manager has rested players for this carling cup round in the past two days. At this level of football, where minor strains, fatigue and slight lapses in concentration lead to potential disaster just playing your first 11 every game is simply asking for trouble. In addition your squad needs rotation at some point so that you can keep players properly interested and sharp, because we'll need to call on Taylor, Mark Davies, Cohen, Rodrigo etc at some point.

We COULD have played a better team but had a key player been ruled out for the season at Burnley everyone would be complaining about the team selection. He picked a team good enough to win, who proved it by carving out enough chances to win, but failed to take them.

This mantra of playing your best team every game is just old school and a lot of the arguments don't apply to the situation the modern game is actually in. Coyle is obviously trying to build a spirit and ethic throughout the club of how the game is played, of people earning the right to play and getting a fair chance as much as possible. He will have wanted some of those players the other night to step up and some of them did, others didn't. But he can't just go round sticking to his first 11 every game or hauling off other players as soon as they're not doing that well. Otherwise a few injuries and suspensions and we're screwed.

[thebish]

OK - let's draw a line under it...

they gave us Coyle, we gave them SirNut... job done.

[seanworth]

OK - let's draw a line under it...

they gave us Coyle, we gave them SirNut... job done.

Ouch.

[officer_dibble]

Just to back CAPS up of sorts:

Link

Bolton pair Stuart Holden and Fabrice Muamba have won more tackles than anyone else so far this season apart from Blackburn's Michel Salgado.

Says to me they are either immense at tackling......OR they are making more because they are more exposed than any other midfielders. For one - fair enough we have a good tackler, for both to be in there you do wonder...

I hate to call that conclusion bollox just like that, but you know when something is, you've got to say.

Allardyce regularly pulled the stat out of the hat that Campo, Speed and Nolan were covering more ground winning more tackles, winning more headers etc etc etc.. Not really an overrun midfield, was it? So why run around so much?

I could accept if you'd concluded we are crap at retaining possession, that would follow, but if it was any other team they'd be lauded for it. I sometimes wish Megson would return for a game, just so we could see the progress we've made.

in fairness I didn't conclude anything in a true politician style! My opinion is holden and fabrice are being asked to do too much in certain games. I think we need to be more flexible. But I see sean davis or even job as the men to assist. And they are buggered.

[BWFC_Insane]

Sir Owen says time to move on....plus a few other things....

http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/wa ... _downfall/

I have closed that chapter and moved on,” he said. “The decision to leave Burnley wasn’t right, wrong or indifferent, it was just a decision.

“If people want to keep dragging it up then it’s up to them. I’m as focused on my job as I ever was, regardless of what people want to say.”

The Whites boss singled out young striker Rodrigo as one of his most impressive midweek performers, and reckons he has a few selection decisions to make ahead of the United game.

“Young Rodrigo was terrific, it was great to see him out there,” he said.

“We had a lot of quality out there, but there is also a lot more to come back in.

“I said to the lads in the dressing room that it’s not often after a defeat you can look back and take so many positives, but there were a lot to take.”

[Bruce Rioja]

It's been a while. But don't mistake my meaning. I'm saying they wouldn't build a new stadium in Burnden's old location and that would be one of the reasons why not. That's why I said it couldn't happen today. Do you disagree?

Ah, so you're a town planner now as well? I didn't know that. However, what I would suggest is that the land's current use would be pretty high up the pecking order. As such, if we're talking about having replaced Burnden Park with a new stadium on the same site (which we are) you'd be altering the stadium, that is all, not its use nor adding significantly to the amount of people using it. Would the planners allow someone to now knock down ASDA and whatnot to build a football ground? I'd have thought not.
Something that people fail to observe though when they're saying that we should've built a new stadium on the Burnden site is that the size of its footprint is absolutely tiny. We'd have ended up with something as ridiculous as Valley Parade.

[marshall_42]

Sir Owen says time to move on....plus a few other things....

http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/wa ... _downfall/

I have closed that chapter and moved on,” he said. “The decision to leave Burnley wasn’t right, wrong or indifferent, it was just a decision.

“If people want to keep dragging it up then it’s up to them. I’m as focused on my job as I ever was, regardless of what people want to say.”

The Whites boss singled out young striker Rodrigo as one of his most impressive midweek performers, and reckons he has a few selection decisions to make ahead of the United game.

“Young Rodrigo was terrific, it was great to see him out there,” he said.

“We had a lot of quality out there, but there is also a lot more to come back in.

“I said to the lads in the dressing room that it’s not often after a defeat you can look back and take so many positives, but there were a lot to take.”

I didnt see anything positive in the BBC highlights video...just lots of Burnely shots that were close to going in.

[TANGODANCER]

It's been a while. But don't mistake my meaning. I'm saying they wouldn't build a new stadium in Burnden's old location and that would be one of the reasons why not. That's why I said it couldn't happen today. Do you disagree?

Ah, so you're a town planner now as well? I didn't know that. However, what I would suggest is that the land's current use would be pretty high up the pecking order. As such, if we're talking about having replaced Burnden Park with a new stadium on the same site (which we are) you'd be altering the stadium, that is all, not its use nor adding significantly to the amount of people using it. Would the planners allow someone to now knock down ASDA and whatnot to build a football ground? I'd have thought not.
Something that people fail to observe though when they're saying that we should've built a new stadium on the Burnden site is that the size of its footprint is absolutely tiny. We'd have ended up with something as ridiculous as Valley Parade.

I was just passing an opinion. I did mention Moses Gate as an option which you said wasn't. I'll admit to not knowing why if you'd care to expand.

How many football stadiums are in town centres simply because they were built donkeys years ago when life was much slower paced and traffic nowhere near what it is today. How many of them would be built there today? I'm suggesting there'd be a lot more Reeboks than Burndens is all, an opinion that doesn't really seem to conflict with what you're saying? Retail parks and industrial estates were built for that very reason, because delivering via forty foot articulated vehicles to town centres isn't really a feasible option today. It isn't necessary to be a town planner to realise that surely?

[boltonboris]

It's been a while. But don't mistake my meaning. I'm saying they wouldn't build a new stadium in Burnden's old location and that would be one of the reasons why not. That's why I said it couldn't happen today. Do you disagree?

Ah, so you're a town planner now as well? I didn't know that. However, what I would suggest is that the land's current use would be pretty high up the pecking order. As such, if we're talking about having replaced Burnden Park with a new stadium on the same site (which we are) you'd be altering the stadium, that is all, not its use nor adding significantly to the amount of people using it. Would the planners allow someone to now knock down ASDA and whatnot to build a football ground? I'd have thought not.
Something that people fail to observe though when they're saying that we should've built a new stadium on the Burnden site is that the size of its footprint is absolutely tiny. We'd have ended up with something as ridiculous as Valley Parade.

I was just passing an opinion. I did mention Moses Gate as an option which you said wasn't. I'll admit to not knowing why if you'd care to expand.
How many football stadiums are in town centres simply because they were built donkeys years ago when life was much slower paced and traffic nowhere near what it is today. How many of them would be built there today? I'm suggesting there'd be a lot more Reeboks than Burndens is all, an opinion that doesn't really seem to conflict with what you're saying? Retail parks and industrial estates were built for that very reason, because delivering via forty foot articulated vehicles to town centres isn't really a feasible option today. It isn't necessary to be a town planner to realise that surely?

We didn't build the stadium with our own funds. We rented the stadium until we recently bought it. The company who had it built, also wanted to maximise it's revenue by not only charging us for it's space, but all manner of shops, restaurants, cinemas, supermarkets etc..

If it was built in Moses Gate, I'm pretty sure we could only have the stadium, without all the carparking and other bits and bobs that 'we' have in Middlebrook

[Bruce Rioja]

It's been a while. But don't mistake my meaning. I'm saying they wouldn't build a new stadium in Burnden's old location and that would be one of the reasons why not. That's why I said it couldn't happen today. Do you disagree?

Ah, so you're a town planner now as well? I didn't know that. However, what I would suggest is that the land's current use would be pretty high up the pecking order. As such, if we're talking about having replaced Burnden Park with a new stadium on the same site (which we are) you'd be altering the stadium, that is all, not its use nor adding significantly to the amount of people using it. Would the planners allow someone to now knock down ASDA and whatnot to build a football ground? I'd have thought not.
Something that people fail to observe though when they're saying that we should've built a new stadium on the Burnden site is that the size of its footprint is absolutely tiny. We'd have ended up with something as ridiculous as Valley Parade.

I was just passing an opinion. I did mention Moses Gate as an option which you said wasn't. I'll admit to not knowing why if you'd care to expand.

How many football stadiums are in town centres simply because they were built donkeys years ago when life was much slower paced and traffic nowhere near what it is today. How many of them would be built there today? I'm suggesting there'd be a lot more Reeboks than Burndens is all, an opinion that doesn't really seem to conflict with what you're saying? Retail parks and industrial estates were built for that very reason, because delivering via forty foot articulated vehicles to town centres isn't really a feasible option today. It isn't necessary to be a town planner to realise that surely?

Football grounds recently re-designed on their original site, and not relocated?

Let's have a think then.

Old Trafford
Anfield
Upton Park
Turf Moor
Ewood Park
Even Maine Road before a spare one came up.

These are just a few off the top of my head.

[as]

I can't think of another club that has upped sticks from a town centre to a retail park 5 miles away. I suppose it works for families, but saying that the North Upper looks empty every game now.

That said, we're stuck with a ground in Horwich forever now, not that it'll ever stop me hating the place

After the match I'd love a walk in town and to visit the various boozers, instead it's Scotts and then a loooooooong wait for a train home, don't even get me started on night matches - pah!

Didn't Hargreaves get the contract to build the stadium too? I smell something fishy - and I'm not talking about the contents of Baldrick's apple crumble.

[BWFC_Insane]

It's been a while. But don't mistake my meaning. I'm saying they wouldn't build a new stadium in Burnden's old location and that would be one of the reasons why not. That's why I said it couldn't happen today. Do you disagree?

Ah, so you're a town planner now as well? I didn't know that. However, what I would suggest is that the land's current use would be pretty high up the pecking order. As such, if we're talking about having replaced Burnden Park with a new stadium on the same site (which we are) you'd be altering the stadium, that is all, not its use nor adding significantly to the amount of people using it. Would the planners allow someone to now knock down ASDA and whatnot to build a football ground? I'd have thought not.
Something that people fail to observe though when they're saying that we should've built a new stadium on the Burnden site is that the size of its footprint is absolutely tiny. We'd have ended up with something as ridiculous as Valley Parade.

I was just passing an opinion. I did mention Moses Gate as an option which you said wasn't. I'll admit to not knowing why if you'd care to expand.
How many football stadiums are in town centres simply because they were built donkeys years ago when life was much slower paced and traffic nowhere near what it is today. How many of them would be built there today? I'm suggesting there'd be a lot more Reeboks than Burndens is all, an opinion that doesn't really seem to conflict with what you're saying? Retail parks and industrial estates were built for that very reason, because delivering via forty foot articulated vehicles to town centres isn't really a feasible option today. It isn't necessary to be a town planner to realise that surely?

We didn't build the stadium with our own funds. We rented the stadium until we recently bought it. The company who had it built, also wanted to maximise it's revenue by not only charging us for it's space, but all manner of shops, restaurants, cinemas, supermarkets etc..

If it was built in Moses Gate, I'm pretty sure we could only have the stadium, without all the carparking and other bits and bobs that 'we' have in Middlebrook

Is that true? I thought whilst we didn't pay for all of it we still paid a signifcant amount which was where our debt started?

[as]

It's been a while. But don't mistake my meaning. I'm saying they wouldn't build a new stadium in Burnden's old location and that would be one of the reasons why not. That's why I said it couldn't happen today. Do you disagree?

Ah, so you're a town planner now as well? I didn't know that. However, what I would suggest is that the land's current use would be pretty high up the pecking order. As such, if we're talking about having replaced Burnden Park with a new stadium on the same site (which we are) you'd be altering the stadium, that is all, not its use nor adding significantly to the amount of people using it. Would the planners allow someone to now knock down ASDA and whatnot to build a football ground? I'd have thought not.
Something that people fail to observe though when they're saying that we should've built a new stadium on the Burnden site is that the size of its footprint is absolutely tiny. We'd have ended up with something as ridiculous as Valley Parade.

I was just passing an opinion. I did mention Moses Gate as an option which you said wasn't. I'll admit to not knowing why if you'd care to expand.
How many football stadiums are in town centres simply because they were built donkeys years ago when life was much slower paced and traffic nowhere near what it is today. How many of them would be built there today? I'm suggesting there'd be a lot more Reeboks than Burndens is all, an opinion that doesn't really seem to conflict with what you're saying? Retail parks and industrial estates were built for that very reason, because delivering via forty foot articulated vehicles to town centres isn't really a feasible option today. It isn't necessary to be a town planner to realise that surely?

We didn't build the stadium with our own funds. We rented the stadium until we recently bought it. The company who had it built, also wanted to maximise it's revenue by not only charging us for it's space, but all manner of shops, restaurants, cinemas, supermarkets etc..

If it was built in Moses Gate, I'm pretty sure we could only have the stadium, without all the carparking and other bits and bobs that 'we' have in Middlebrook

Is that true? I thought whilst we didn't pay for all of it we still paid a signifcant amount which was where our debt started?

Wasn't that because we struggled to sell Burnden.

So we got in debt to take the heart and soul out of a football club?

Gartside was around then too - GARTSIDE OUT!

[boltonboris]

It's been a while. But don't mistake my meaning. I'm saying they wouldn't build a new stadium in Burnden's old location and that would be one of the reasons why not. That's why I said it couldn't happen today. Do you disagree?

Ah, so you're a town planner now as well? I didn't know that. However, what I would suggest is that the land's current use would be pretty high up the pecking order. As such, if we're talking about having replaced Burnden Park with a new stadium on the same site (which we are) you'd be altering the stadium, that is all, not its use nor adding significantly to the amount of people using it. Would the planners allow someone to now knock down ASDA and whatnot to build a football ground? I'd have thought not.
Something that people fail to observe though when they're saying that we should've built a new stadium on the Burnden site is that the size of its footprint is absolutely tiny. We'd have ended up with something as ridiculous as Valley Parade.

I was just passing an opinion. I did mention Moses Gate as an option which you said wasn't. I'll admit to not knowing why if you'd care to expand.
How many football stadiums are in town centres simply because they were built donkeys years ago when life was much slower paced and traffic nowhere near what it is today. How many of them would be built there today? I'm suggesting there'd be a lot more Reeboks than Burndens is all, an opinion that doesn't really seem to conflict with what you're saying? Retail parks and industrial estates were built for that very reason, because delivering via forty foot articulated vehicles to town centres isn't really a feasible option today. It isn't necessary to be a town planner to realise that surely?

We didn't build the stadium with our own funds. We rented the stadium until we recently bought it. The company who had it built, also wanted to maximise it's revenue by not only charging us for it's space, but all manner of shops, restaurants, cinemas, supermarkets etc..

If it was built in Moses Gate, I'm pretty sure we could only have the stadium, without all the carparking and other bits and bobs that 'we' have in Middlebrook

Is that true? I thought whilst we didn't pay for all of it we still paid a signifcant amount which was where our debt started?

We may have paid a portion, but that would only have given us a preferencial rate ont he hire costs. burnden leisure were our holding company, they were the ones that bought the land / built the stadium?