Match Thread: Port Vale v Milton Keynes D

[philmpv]

Someone told me yesterday that the reason we don't play Stevens is that we can't pay him and Taylor.
So what's the point of having him on the bench then? Silly rumours. Our so called fans only seem happy if they're spouting tripe 

Sounds like absolute crap to me. In a lot of loan contracts at our level there's actually a higher wage contribution agreed if they don't play. Don't know if that's the case here but strongly suspect someone is just making stuff up

[Trumpingtonvale]

43 minutes ago, philmpv said:

54 minutes ago, DazFred said:

Someone told me yesterday that the reason we don't play Stevens is that we can't pay him and Taylor.
So what's the point of having him on the bench then? Silly rumours. Our so called fans only seem happy if they're spouting tripe 

Sounds like absolute crap to me. In a lot of loan contracts at our level there's actually a higher wage contribution agreed if they don't play. Don't know if that's the case here but strongly suspect someone is just making stuff up

Probably the same fans who were saying we were only playing Donnelly (when we had a choice) because Forrest payed all his wages if he played.  That’s a model Adam Yates eluded to on the radio when recalling his time under Mickey Adams (when we were in administration) but he said it was highly unlikely DC would allow the same in our current situation.  I often get the impression Vale fans just love a conspiracy theory or perhaps just those who frequent certain sites on the internet.

[DazFred]

49 minutes ago, philmpv said:

1 hour ago, DazFred said:

Someone told me yesterday that the reason we don't play Stevens is that we can't pay him and Taylor.
So what's the point of having him on the bench then? Silly rumours. Our so called fans only seem happy if they're spouting tripe 

Sounds like absolute crap to me. In a lot of loan contracts at our level there's actually a higher wage contribution agreed if they don't play. Don't know if that's the case here but strongly suspect someone is just making stuff up

It's from the knowall in the Bycars. I know you can only have 5 loans in the match day squad which is why I think Mipo misses out.

All these tripe rumours in the background show how little folks know 

I just wish the crowd would continue to get behind the team like they did yesterday.

I don't think it's been pretty to watch this season but all I wanted to do was beat the poorer teams in the division to get enough points to stay up. I think we're doing just that. Throw in the odd really good performance (Derby,Plymouth...even Derby and Ipswich at home) and I think the squad have done admirably so far.

Big 3 points yesterday 

[DazFred]

2 minutes ago, Trumpingtonvale said:

Probably the same fans who were saying we were only playing Donnelly (when we had a choice) because Forrest payed all his wages if he played.  That’s a model Adam Yates eluded to on the radio when recalling his time under Mickey Adams (when we were in administration) but he said it was highly unlikely DC would allow the same in our current situation.  I often get the impression Vale fans just love a conspiracy theory or perhaps just those who frequent certain sites on the internet.

I agree completely.

The back 3 look ok to me, especially with Pett in front of them. I thought Benning won a lot of headers yesterday and competed well. I really don't think the pitch helps our crossing and players simply will not shoot from the edge of the box.. they'd rather pass it off. We tried to play footie yesterday against the worst team I've seen at VP this season 

[Jacko51]

2 hours ago, DazFred said:

Someone told me yesterday that the reason we don't play Stevens is that we can't pay him and Taylor.

 

Tripe.  Morecambe had two loanees from the same club (Southampton) on the pitch yesterday.

[JoeB2]

49 minutes ago, Jacko51 said:

Tripe.  Morecambe had two loanees from the same club (Southampton) on the pitch yesterday.

Not saying it's correct as I have no idea but I don't think the rumour is implying it's a universal rule - maybe Oxford, as our divisional rivals, have put a clause into Taylor's loan deal?

It is weirdly coincidental that Stevens was dropped for Barnsley and hasn't played since - that was Taylor's debut and he's started every game since then.

Probably 2+2 = 5. Dropping Stevens for Stone still makes no sense to me, though, but no idea if this rumour is true. I imagine Stevens will be reinstated at some point and we'll know it's tosh.

[valefan16]

Not saying it's correct as I have no idea but I don't think the rumour is implying it's a universal rule - maybe Oxford, as our divisional rivals, have put a clause into Taylor's loan deal?
It is weirdly coincidental that Stevens was dropped for Barnsley and hasn't played since - that was Taylor's debut and he's started every game since then.
Probably 2+2 = 5. Dropping Stevens for Stone still makes no sense to me, though, but no idea if this rumour is true. I imagine Stevens will be reinstated at some point and we'll know it's tosh.

Makes no sense as Stevens is on the bench. The rule does exist about two from the same club in the Premier League however.

[Guppys left peg]

With regards to Stevens the only thing I can think it might be is if there was an obligation to buy sort of clause if he plays x amount of games. That’s just guesswork though and nothing more than that.

[Jacko51]

32 minutes ago, JoeB2 said:

Not saying it's correct as I have no idea but I don't think the rumour is implying it's a universal rule - maybe Oxford, as our divisional rivals, have put a clause into Taylor's loan deal?

It is weirdly coincidental that Stevens was dropped for Barnsley and hasn't played since - that was Taylor's debut and he's started every game since then.

Probably 2+2 = 5. Dropping Stevens for Stone still makes no sense to me, though, but no idea if this rumour is true. I imagine Stevens will be reinstated at some point and we'll know it's tosh.

So if Stone gets injured in a game we can’t bring Stevens on?  

[Guppys left peg]

2 minutes ago, Jacko51 said:

So if Stone gets injured in a game we can’t bring Stevens on?  

If that was the case surely we’d just have the academy kid Perry on the bench? Just imagine the ridiculous situation of having to make a double sub involving Taylor if that were the case. 

[Brian]

Ref the minutes applause issue.

I thought yesterday’s game, with its 4 separate minutes of applause, showed up the difficulty of showing respect in this way. 
 

3 times, the applause was during eventful periods of play, which made the gesture feel very ragged and unsatisfactory (the other one was while an opposition player was getting treatment).

Instead of doing it this way, I would suggest a single tannoy announcement, probably at half time, and the fans could then show their respect without a chance of getting distracted.

[Wozza4England]

Please read DazFred’s post regarding the rumour. He clearly states he heard we can’t PAY  Stevens and Taylor not we can’t PLAY them both. The insinuation of the rumour is that we can’t afford to pay both.

Stupid rumour if you ask me with absolutely no evidence.

[Dangermouse3]

Thought the game was scrappy but we deserved the three points. Stone's kicking was good from BOTH feet but his coming for crosses strategy, worried me. Smith outstanding in the air and fellow defenders were sound. Agreed about Pett and kooky we didn't get a sending off.

Feel we play better away from home and now that we have 4 strikers available, it gives us options. Ellis earlier in the season was winning most headers, of late, he still looks a bit rusty.

Midfield set up looked good, but opposition poor with terrible ball retention.

Looking forward to the next few games as safety draws closer.

[JRC]

Based on our remaining games I think we are probably going to be safe. I suspect we will probably finish the season 12 or 13th. 

Maybe our recent injury crisis fell at the right time in the season. We've only a couple of games left against the bigger sides. Our first 11 is good enough to realistically get at least 15 points from the remaining games. That should leave is comfortably above the relegation zone. Probably shows we have a decent league 1 squad; though somewhat below some of the wealthier clubs. Closing that gap isn't going to be easy; or cheap.

[werstayinup]

2 hours ago, Wozza4England said:

Please read DazFred’s post regarding the rumour. He clearly states he heard we can’t PAY  Stevens and Taylor not we can’t PLAY them both. The insinuation of the rumour is that we can’t afford to pay both.

Stupid rumour if you ask me with absolutely no evidence.

We will be paying our agreed % of their wage anyway while they are on loan to us,so it's a load of pap imo