Jim Smith

The positives are that we are playing better in general and really dominated that game first half and should have been out of sight. Dijks looks good, Pritchard sounds like he had a good game and we have goals in us. We will be challenging for that top six. The negatives are that once again our inability to defend properly has cost us, particularly from crosses and set pieces and whilst we remain so vulnerable in that area we are going to not win games we should do. I also feel that we came out second half and let them build up a head of steam and did not react to their sub/tactical change until they had scored two goals. We kind of sat back and did the same at Cardiff but got away with it that time. We are not generally good enough to defend a 1 goal lead away from home through containment so we need to stay on the front foot and at high tempo.

Need to regain a grip on this. One nil suddenly feels a fragile lead.

So far, so good and it really feels like there has been a change in momentum and we are starting to click. I don''t like resting Wes but if it has to happen then we should have been interchanging him and Pritchard like this all season. Other than that minimal tinkering again and we seem to have some continuity. Left hand side seems to have been shored up even if Wildshutt has yet to get going. Let''s see this one out and move on as it sounds like we are well superior. Must not sit back and invite them on to us.

He''s here now for the rest of the season so we have no choice but to back him and get on with it. he''s managed us competently for the last few games and seems to be learning (finally). if he gets us up via the playoffs then he deserves another crack at the premier league although I personally would have little faith in his ability to keep us up. If we miss out on the top 6 he should be replaced immediately but he won''t be.

Yes I agree that does also make a difference but I feel like for quite a while we just had a really poor shots to goals ratio defensively and quite a few shots found the bottom corner that were not always that powerful. Ruddy now appears to be getting his form back and saving a few of those sort of shots.

I would definitely play him. Nailed on to score if he gets booed.

I tend to agree he''s starting to look much more like the Ruddy of old. has made a few really good saves in some recent games and just looks more agile and commanding. Makes a big difference to us as for 18 months or so he just seemed to stop making saves and I feel we conceded a few goals we should not have.

No way we can go with Jarvis at left back. The heavy run of games a double edged sword in terms of Dijks fitness. Should help get him up to speed quickly over the next few weeks but he must be shattered after Saturday. I really hope we don''t rest Wes but if we do then Pritchard the obvious like for like replacement.

Whilst I accept its horses for courses and that we need to toughen up to get results at some venues I hope we are not going to go that direct too often because its not the style that suits most of our players best and to be honest we couldn''t really have complained had Cardiff got an equaliser when we backed off second half.

Perhaps a few signs of him (and others) learning of late. A more settled starting 11 despite some injuries. Consistency for starting players and those on the bench. Even if you don''t agree with every selection its the consistency and players knowing where they stand that helps. Starting Wes regularly again. Players getting used to partnerships and patterns of play. Possibly (although early days) a couple of decent signings down the left hand side. He has basically over the last few games settled down and managed us competently and long may it continue because when he does we are good enough and if we get on a roll we may be a real threat to that top 6. Despite my views on Neil I have to admit I respect his balls in sticking it out and emerging from the storm he was in. That resolve is something I cannot fault. Its taken a long time though for the penny to drop and I don''t think it will ever be possible to prove whether or not persisting with him was the correct decision or in fact cost us a chance of automatic promotion but from hereon in we all want the same thing which is to get ourselves into that top 6 because if we make the playoffs we are well capable of winning them.

@Diane I don''t doubt that. Indeed he may well be up to the job. All I am saying is something doesn''t add up given that we have retrospectively been told Balls was actually acting CEO during this period.

I couldn''t care less about his politics to be honest. I don''t think he should have been offered that money or that he should have accepted it and would question what he actually did to earn it based on what is in the public domain. I think its another example of our "co-operative" board not doing as they preach.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04hl44k Balls has on a number of occasions stated that he was responsible for bringing in Moxey. In fact its what he cited as part of the justification for his £90k although if, as is widely being claimed now, the process was largely handled by external headhunters then it makes that payment and how much time he supposedly put into that process even more questionable. Interviewing CEO candidates selected by headhunters would seem to me to fall fairly and squarely within the remit of an "unpaid" club chairman. The whole £90k thing is very grubby if you ask me. Mind you with that coupled with his payoff when he lost his seat and his strictly antics its presumably lucrative days outside politics for Ed.

[quote user="king canary"]Was he really driving a wedge between the club and the fans though? Sure the FA Cup pricing wasn''t smart but the real bone of contention (in my opinion anyway) was the insistence of hanging on to Alex Neil, something that I''m sure doesn''t come just from Moxey. As I say, I don''t know if he was good at his job and I don''t think any of us do. Clearly the board decided he wasn''t as it their want. But yet again it raises more questions about those running the club.[/quote] THIS. Moxey''s lack of interactions was certainly not helping things but the real wedge between the fans and the club has been created by the Neil situation and the Times Interview. The price for the cup tickets is a complete red herring.

[quote user="morty"][quote user="ZLF"]so we want stone because he connects well with the fans? I agree that it communication is important, but at best its only a small part of their role and probably only 4th/5th on my list of abilities needed from a CEO.[/quote]I think the fact that he has already carried out the role, albeit temporarily, has to stand him in good stead. Also he is well placed to know what is expected of the role, and what the board expect of him, and how he fits in with the club moving forward.It would seem a pretty common sense choice.[/quote] But did he carry out the role. Throughout the time he was carrying out the role we were told he was carrying out the role. But afterwards we were told Ed Balls was actually carrying out the role because Stone needed his help. If that is the case it would suggest that he''s perhaps not the man for the job.

Course he couldn''t but the key question is whether it would have cost a lot less. The club has never refuted the claim that his notice period was adjusted.

Payment in lieu of notice appears to be what McNally got. If Moxey is on a decent contract he probably gets a years pay.

How is that tabloid spin. It''s one of the things he did in the summer that was used to justify the payment he received. Another (which he doesn''t admit to public ally) was possibly also to give our rubbish manager an unnecessary new contract.

Why are people saying we should appoint Steve Stone as CEO when we were told (dubiously in my book but we were told nonetheless) that Balls had to step in during the summer because Stone needed help? Balls who got £90k for appointing Moxey. An appointment that has failed and probably cost us a lot of money if we''ve had to agree a payoff.

Moxey!

I think Maxey himself is no great loss but he was not the problem at our club. I suspect he could foresee how he would be made the scapegoat when the impossible, unsustainable path we are headed down leads to failure. He has already been made a scapegoat by many when he''s not really to blame. He''s not handled things well with the fans admittedly but he''s only been with us 6 months. Balls better not get on the payroll again for looking for his replacement.

@Ron - its still not "decent business2 its cutting your losses. It will be interesting to see how he gets on at Brentford if he''s given a chance there. I too like the look of the new boys so fingers crossed. We have though left ourselves exposed if Dijks gets an unjury and as someone else has commented the CM options look a little bare as well although I disagree with the comments above about Tettey who I think has looked back on song in recent weeks.

How can Canos be decent business? Even in the unlikely event that we got back what we paid for him in transfer fees (which I seriously doubt) we have no doubt wasted half a million in wages on him over the last 5 months. I suspect overall we will be down at least a million on the whole deal. The Canos situation is a symptom of both poor recruiting and poor management. As for the others we will have to wait and see. I think they both look decent players albeit I think we have paid over the odds for Wildshut and I worry that we now only have one left back in the squad.

Bit early to be declaring it a good window I think. We will have to wait and see how these new guys perform. If they are up to it then yes it''s a good window but if either of them turn out to be sh*t or get the Canos/Pritchard treatment then it won''t have been a good window because we have lost two proven, international performers who were generally guaranteed starters. We have also gone from having two left back options to only one which leaves us very vulnerable if Dijks gets injured. That said I like the fact we have a genuinely quick, proper left winger at last.

What is strange is that the stated reason leaked to Barclay (presumably by Moxey) for not sacking Neil included the fact that they are backing him to rebuild the squad and yet here we are now less than a week from the end of the window and nothing other than one of our better players having been sold. Its hardly rebuilding is it.