Exeter City v Heybridge Swifts Prediction Thread

[crocks]

Given Tis record in the cup, probably have a better chance with Oakley in charge!

Tis turn to provide the Sunday reading at St Nicholas's church in Biddestone ...

 

[ExeterCityLad]

Rather like an England qualifying game it’ll be a dull and insipid affair. Ultimately, after a couple of minor scares City will run out comfortable winners, probably by three or four to nil with all the goals coming in the last quarter of the match. Tis will say post match that we had to be patient as they were hard to break down. In reality they’ll banzai the first twenty minutes then park the bus hoping for a TV replay and decent pot of cash.

Pete’s suggestion is nonsense - even the closed off areas of the ground will have more people in them than their average crowd. If we don’t win we really do need to have a very long and very hard look at ourselves, chances for a second round tie really don’t come any easier than this.

Probably accurate bar Tisdale isn't managing us for this game.

 

[ramone]

Probably accurate bar Tisdale isn't managing us for this game.

That's because that quote from Antony Moxey was posted on the 31st and the news of Sir Tis of the Dale missing the game wasn't put out until the 3rd and wouldn't have know who was managing the game

 

[malcolms]

Well this is a strange one and I cannot help wondering if the pressing engagement would have been less pressing had we been playing the likes of Liverpool?

To my mind Tisdale is paid to manage ECFC and should not be entitled to delegate his responsibilities unless there are serious medical reasons concerning either himself or a close member of his family. This is an FA Cup tie worth £18,000 to the winning team and a place in the second round draw and possible live TV coverage.

Regardless of the level of opponent it is an important game and an opportunity for the Club to progress. Tisdale is paid very good money to manage the Club and ensure where possible that such opportunities are not missed and therefore in such circumstances should have remained at the helm.

Is of course the correct response....Grass will be an inch long next Saturday cos the groundsman decided this was the week for his early winter fishing break...

 

[LOG]

The biggest concern for me is that Matt Oakley might pick himself.

 

[manc grecian]

*shudders*

 

[Terryhall]

I have to say I don't think it was too terrible that Tisdale wasn't there last Sunday. To play devils advocate, if:

(a) Something work related had emerged which meant that rather than it falling on my usual working day (when I would have been available for work), it now fell on a day on which I do not normally work and had previously not been expected to work
(b) Based on a reasonable expectation that I would not be working, I had made other commitments for that day which for whatever reason I did not feel able to break
and
(c) Both my employer and I felt that, although ideally I would have been available, there was adequate cover within my team such that they could handle the work event and I could still keep my personal commitment

...then I think that not only would that be perfectly reasonable, it's also pretty much what any employee would expect from their employer in those circumstances.

Based on the fixture calendar, Tisdale was not expecting a fixture on the Sunday (it was an unlikely possibility of which he was aware, but he had pre-cleared his other commitment with the club in advance). In the scenario that we drew a bigger side (Liverpool not in Round 1, but lets say Blackburn or Wigan for example) then under (c) above, both Tisdale and the club may have felt that actually, there wasn't adequate cover for that situation, and maybe another decision would have been reached. But we drew Heybridge, Tis and the club did feel that Oakley was able to handle the job, and as it turns out that decision was vindicated as we won 3-1

I actually don't see very much wrong here - employee agreed time off with his employer - work event moved to clash with that time off - employer and employee agreed that there was adequate cover. That's all there is to see here.

 

[Antony Moxey]

^ Pretty much agree with all of that. I suspect the board knows the reason he wanted the time off and sanctioned it thus, and suspect also that should they have felt the need to recall him he'd have had to come back. We don't need to know the reason but as long as the board does and it's satisfied then as you say that's all there is to see here.