What an odd post.

That really worries me, what on earth do they mean by that? RL is a provincial sport and we're barely even the 'market leaders' in our own city any more. Does Jimmy Rule think that viewers from outside the RL heartlands are going to adopt the perennially dire black & white's as their team, and inundate the club's shiny new website with merchandise orders? Maybe he thinks we're going to crack those lucrative Asian markets?

The board have done well to build up the club as a business but there isn't a 'market leader' in any walk of life that isn't also a half decent product. Our product is what happens on the pitch and it is nowhere near good enough to allow us to be the leader of anything, no amount of marketing hot air is going to change that.

Why ? If people vehemently disagree with the club, or think that everything they put out os so poor, why put yourselves through the heartache of reading it ?

As for the 'hope we lose' bit that was directed specifically at a few of our our friends who "see the bigger picture" or who are "in it for the long term".

Neither are Hull's looking at pictures of Obst and Phelps.

Also how the hell don't they know how old Lee Williams is, couldn't they have asked someone?

The future stars bit is poor out of date, ages and informations, lots of people missing looks a rush job to me.

Site looks smart though, interesting to see who the coaches of the under 15' and 16's are, a couple of ex players (one Rovers) and some current players.

Just about to watch the under 20's video.

Because it implied that there are only two sets of peopleThe need for propaganda would be drastically reduced by simply addressing the problems on the playing side. Then the club site could just be about reporting the positive things that are happening instead of trying to convince us not to believe what's right before our eyes.'"

I can't speak for the club, but personally I'd expect someone to read that piece as a possibly mildly interesting piece of whimsy. I certainly wouldn't expect it to change anyone's opinion one way or the other. I mean, it's hardly a rallying cry or even anything close. The views expressed are so far from controversial that if it wasn't for the somewhat overwrought atmosphere on here it would probably pass without comment.

I really do think that far too much is being read into it TBH.

It's a reference to making the club more attractive to sponsors. Thought that was pretty obvious TBH.

Also, attempting to denigrate someone by using the diminutive form of their first name is a pretty cheap shot, wouldn't you say? Particularly someone who has drastically improved the marketing of the club during his tenure.

It's stuff like thisHere at the FC, however we are just fans, who love our club, sometimes we feel aggrieved and badly done by, because as fans that’s out right, we pay our money and are entitled to our opinions but in the end we just believe in supporting our team ‘In Any Kinda Weather’ and at times like these when the fans are experiencing hard times and have varying opinions on our playing record, I am still just as proud to be part of that great community. '"

Calling him Jimmy Rule is a cheap shot?

And I'm quite aware that brand market leadership involves sponsorship opportunities thanks, do you not agree that successful teams get better sponsorship deals?

Yes we maybe do at the moment, but all the factors you mention are dependent to a large extent on on-field success. It's not that long ago that Jimmy Rule could still say '3 finals in 4 seasons' and we no doubt did well with the sponsors off the back of it. If we carry on performing on the field like we have been lately for much longer, I think that it's inevitable that sponsorship will fall regardless of how good at his job Mr James Rule is.

No, they just post silly little eye-rolling emoticons and say that I should simply not read the website rather than reading it and commenting (negatively) about it.



Yes. My question is what's known as a 'rhetorical' one. I wasn't actually seriously enquiring as to whether the 'view from the terraces' would contradict the club's view. I posed the question to highlight what I perceived as the pointlessness of the blog.



We both know that a large proportion of fans are unhappy with our performances under Agar. What was being disputed on Sunday was the method they chose to express their views and the timing of it, not the views themselves.



I don't disagree with [iall[/i of it. But your point is rather like me saying that if you don't agree with my posts, you should not bother reading them and you certainly shouldn't bother to respond to them.



I never listened to Airlie Night, but from what I gather, the objections were to the fact that callers with anything remotely controversial to say were never allowed on air, or were cut off abrubtly if they did manage to sneak through. I might be off the mark, as I didn't pay a lot of attention to the threads, but that was the gist I got.



Indeed. But I don't see why if someone posts something negative about an aspect of the club's site your default response is a rather glib "don't read it then".

Talk about spin , do you do anything other than argue every single point raised on here FFS, work maybe??

I wonder if DDD's blog will 'tow the party line' as they say? It might be an interesting read......