The unofficial AFC Rushden & Diamonds messageboard

Abandonment was a blessing in disguise as we were heading for a scoreless draw. A really dour game.

Well I guess you could argue it was a blessing in disguise with it being 0-0 (though I still think we would have broken throguh eventually), but its still disappointing to have the big Boxing Day D&D derby abandoned like that and have to go home early :roll:

What was the crowd by the way, I thought I heard 746, but I didn't hear clearly so may have misheard?

There's also the knock-on effect to consider. Are people who came for the first time or attend very occassionally going to return?

SouthRushdenJFC wrote:There's also the knock-on effect to consider. Are people who came for the first time or attend very occassionally going to return?

No! We are probably going to win the league but I can safely say I and dare I say a few other people; have never been so uninspired by the football on display. (that's when you can actually see what's going on). It's just all a bit boring. And that is reflected in the atmosphere or lack of it.

On the subject of the lights its going to need both clubs to get together and address the problem. Even when they are on they must still be some of the worst in the league. Surely investing in replacements must be high on the to do list. Not sure how easy that would be to do though.

Dowlo wrote: Surely investing in replacements must be high on the to do list. Not sure how easy that would be to do though.

Agreed. Cost needs to be split 50/50 with WTFC and therein lies the problem. Are we prepared to invest in a ground where we are only temporary sub-tenants and if we are can WTFC contribute to their 50% pf the cost? Some work was done to the lights in the summer at a total cost in the region of £15-16k.

Trek wrote:

Dowlo wrote: Surely investing in replacements must be high on the to do list. Not sure how easy that would be to do though.

Agreed. Cost needs to be split 50/50 with WTFC and therein lies the problem.

If that's an unsurmountable issue then it needs to be accepted, and I venture to add comunicated, that until a new ground is sought then UCL Prem will be the highest level the club can sustain

SouthRushdenJFC wrote:

Trek wrote:

Dowlo wrote: Surely investing in replacements must be high on the to do list. Not sure how easy that would be to do though.

Agreed. Cost needs to be split 50/50 with WTFC and therein lies the problem.

If that's an unsurmountable issue then it needs to be accepted, and I venture to add comunicated, that until a new ground is sought then UCL Prem will be the highest level the club can sustain

3 negative comments from southrushdenJFC in as many minutes tonight..... someone who normally only supports the club, Did you not get the presents you wanted from Santa

real diamond wrote:
3 negative comments from southrushdenJFC in as many minutes tonight..... someone who normally only supports the club, Did you not get the presents you wanted from Santa

How is that not supporting the club? Any club only grows if members are allowed to put their point of view forward and a healthy debate allowed.

You may view the comments as negative but today we had a farcical situation that will have an effect on the casual supporter.

Surely the memory of what happened to the old club when it became unsustainable has not faded already?

MarkH wrote:

Apologies to everyone for today's abandonment the rescheduled fixture will be pay what you want

Interesting tweet at #RDFC

Can anyone confirm this ?

It came from the official Twitter and Facebook pages, don't know what more confirmation you're looking for.

Trek wrote: Some work was done to the lights in the summer at a total cost in the region of £15-16k.

If that's true I would be very surprised as a quotation was obtained for less than that for a full replacement and setting by sports lighting specialists.