Today...........

No opening day ball or match sponsors
No club chairman in attendance
No commercial director. Apparently watching Spurs.
The football club has just stepped back 30 years.

After all that hard work Bob Chester has done over the years for it to be turned into this. Is disgraceful.

Rodney makes an interesting point about the match and ball sponsorships. Last weeks Bath City Newsletter showed that there were none for any of the first three games, and only four match sponsorships (perhaps not surprisingly including Weymouth, Chippenham and Taunton) and two ball (again one of them being Chippenham) for the whole season. Of these six sponsorships, three were shown as being by Bath Rec Ltd. Pretty sure that in previous seasons by now most had been taken up at least until the end of the year.

As for the game itself, was it so awful nobody has anything to say? Frustratingly I couldn't be there but from the commentary it sounded like another of those days where we couldn't find a way past a resolute defence and got caught napping and paid the price for both. I thought some of the criticism I read of Bell seemed a bit harsh - I am pretty sure when he signed neither he nor Jerry thought for one moment that he would be thrown in at the deep end so early.

According to the commentary Dartford travelled down on Friday and stayed overnight, training at Swindon, which gives a good indication of the sort of thing we are up against. It occurred to me that they had probably travelled less far on the day than half of our team!

[quote="LB"]Rodney makes an interesting point about the match and ball sponsorships. Last weeks Bath City Newsletter showed that there were none for any of the first three games, and only four match sponsorships (perhaps not surprisingly including Weymouth, Chippenham and Taunton) and two ball (again one of them being Chippenham) for the whole season. Of these six sponsorships, three were shown as being by Bath Rec Ltd. Pretty sure that in previous seasons by now most had been taken up at least until the end of the year.

Didn't entry to the shirt draw include a ball or match sponsorship which Bob /the club allocated across the season in agreement with the businesses?

In reaction to something that LB has mentioned - I thought that Zac Bell had a very good game, which is more than could be said for the majority of our players, and thoroughly deserved to be 'Player of the Day' for us. Maybe I could be enlightened as to where this rubbish was published.

As for the sad revelation that so few match and/or ball sponsorships have been accrued so far - it just shows us how much work Bob did in the background - hours and hours of cajoling people to come forward to do things like this. Unless things improve on this most important job of sponsorship in general, I fear that we aren't half going to miss Bob - as many of us feared would happen.

In respect of LB's paragraph about the game itself - I thought that it was quite a good game, but he is very near the mark in his assumptions that we couldn't find a way past their resolute defence and got caught out twice by their superior forwards. All in all it was a very interesting game in which to begin to assess how good we are today, as opposed to twelve months ago - their manager would have probably said that they have just had a comfortable victory -  but we have just played against the second favourites to get promotion - we rarely get a sniff at a point against them - and, to pre-empt the words of those City faithful who are much more learned than me - it takes at least half a dozen games to begin to deduce how good or bad we are this year.

At the moment - keep the faith.

I thought Zac Bell had a good first half, but he was at fault for the first goal after which he seemed to lose a little confidence and made a hash of clearing the ball for their second goal. It looks as though he is predominantly right footed and usually plays right back. Maybe when Greenslade is back it might be an idea to play Bell at right back and move Joe Raynes into midfield.

Micawber wrote:I thought Zac Bell had a good first half, but he was at fault for the first goal after which he seemed to lose a little confidence and made a hash of clearing the ball for their second goal. It looks as though he is predominantly right footed and usually plays right back. Maybe when Greenslade is back it might be an idea to play Bell at right back and move Joe Raynes into midfield.

Agree. The goal was well taken.

I had the distinct feeling that Dartford had arranged a short course at RADA, although a couple could do with a refresher.

Zac looks better going forward. His poor defending cost us. Good prospect though. Hopefully he’ll pick himself up and go again

Micawber wrote: Maybe when Greenslade is back it might be an idea to play Bell at right back and move Joe Raynes into midfield.

When Raynes signed his new contract it was on the understanding that he plays at right back as that is his preferred position.

On reflecting on Saturday's game I would flag up that we do appear to be a more physical team this season and we did match Dartford in this department for most of the game. I can imagine the Dartford manager has gone in at half time very pleased with the result and has told his team that they will nick a goal if they stayed patient. In that respect it was like Groundhog day it that the Romans huffed and puffed but never reallly looked like scoring and this buoyed the confidence of the visitors who grew into the game second half. Not sure if Cody Cooke is going to get 20 plus goals this season and we could be relying on Alex Fletcher to score the lions shire of the goals. Cant fault the effort but need to score first to open teams up. By the way I thought the ref has had a nightmare with the penalty decision in the first half. Nailed on penalty!!

sirkev wrote:On reflecting on Saturday's game I would flag up that we do appear to be a more physical team this season and we did match Dartford in this department for most of the game. I can imagine the Dartford manager has gone in at half time very pleased with the result and has told his team that they will nick a goal if they stayed patient. In that respect it was like Groundhog day it that the Romans huffed and puffed but never reallly looked like scoring and this buoyed the confidence of the visitors who grew into the game second half. Not sure if Cody Cooke is going to get 20 plus goals this season and we could be relying on Alex Fletcher to score the lions shire of the goals. Cant fault the effort but need to score first to open teams up. By the way I thought the ref has had a nightmare with the penalty decision in the first half. Nailed on penalty!!

Agree 100%

LB wrote:
According to the commentary Dartford travelled down on Friday and stayed overnight, training at Swindon, which gives a good indication of the sort of thing we are up against. It occurred to me that they had probably travelled less far on the day than half of our team!

I’m told by a reliable source that we’re doing the same for Eastbourne this Friday. Makes sense if the Club can afford it as cross country travel in August can be a nightmare. I believe the team were delayed travelling to Tonbridge on the corresponding day last season.

Sirkev, I agree it looked a nailed on penalty at the time (and this is from someone who never gives them!) but I’m not so sure on seeing it again…

https://youtu.be/Xx8zdCll5Ow

Looking at those highlights I think Bell was left a little exposed for the first goal. The whole side was standing on the right side of the pitch expecting it to be launched there. The flat delivery to our left took out the entire team and the striker just needs to use his strength after that.

comrade powell wrote:Sirkev, I agree it looked a nailed on penalty at the time (and this is from someone who never gives them!) but I’m not so sure on seeing it again…

https://youtu.be/Xx8zdCll5Ow

Will take a look!!

comrade powell wrote:

LB wrote:
According to the commentary Dartford travelled down on Friday and stayed overnight, training at Swindon, which gives a good indication of the sort of thing we are up against. It occurred to me that they had probably travelled less far on the day than half of our team!

I’m told by a reliable source that we’re doing the same for Eastbourne this Friday. Makes sense if the Club can afford it as cross country travel in August can be a nightmare. I believe the team were delayed travelling to Tonbridge on the corresponding day last season.

Wise decision by your management, Martin, if they do travel on Friday. August Saturdays are dreadful. It took us four and a half hours last Saturday (from Eastbourne) to Oxford City, which is a fair fewer miles than Bath to sunny Sussex. Oh, and there's another rail strike this Saturday....

Hope to see some of you at Priory Lane, where you will of course be made most welcome.

Kevin

Hi Kevin
I think the only ones who will be getting there are those going for the long weekend and some exiles. Afraid Eastbourne is always difficult to run a coach to and the strike has done for those who use the train.
Please give my apologies!

Very poor that there were no sponsors. Bob would have got someone, no doubt about that. I don't think everyone fully appreciates what a great job he has done over the years but then he is a straight talker and that does not go down well with everyone.
Personally I think the Supporters Society need to be a lot stronger and hold the board to account, which is what they should be doing. Things seem to have become a bit cosy.

Since the Society provide the bulk of of the Board I am not sure how the Society can challenge itself.
It always seems that the day to day management of the Club still falls to the same individuals who have undertaken that function for many years both pre and post the status change.

It is my understanding of things that one of the roles of the Society Board should be to monitor and hold the club Board to account. If you look at the number of sponsors for this season the first 3 games don't have any and the rest of the season does not look good at the moment. Therefore (in my view) the Society should be questioning the Board on the effectiveness of the measures they have put in place to replace Bob, I don't see how it is particularly relevant that the Board members are Society members / appointed by the Society or not. It more about questioning things when there appears to be something wrong.
I agree about the day to day management of the club still appearing to fall on the same individuals and there was a proposal regarding a succession policy at the last AGM which I support. One of the individuals who was / has performed a vital role pre and post status change is Bob and he is the first to take more of a back seat and the succession policy to replace him seems lacking to me. There is someone else, sure I don't need to spell out who, that performs a role absolutely crucial to the day to day running of the club. There needs to be proper policy to replace that person as if something untoward should happen the consequences would be dire. My concerns are that the club needs to up its game in these areas, what has happened in the case of Bob does not inspire confidence with me.
As i say I supported the succession policy move and It will be interesting to see what the Club and Society Boards come up with, but my view is still that the Society Board needs to be stronger.

Bob was pivotal to the funding and smooth running of the match day at Twerton Park. People of his quality and ability are not two a penny. It will be a challenge to find someone to replace him. One idea is to do what other clubs do and see who is successful at other clubs and try and tempt them to come to City.

The club have replaced Bob with three people! Not one of them could get sponsorship for the opening games. SteveS is right the Society and the supporters club need to take the football club to task.
D