Barrow AFC v Luton Town Match Thread

[Saxman Blue]

Too many balls on the railway tracks

Myself and Notti agree entirely.

[ant]

Very unlucky not to come away with a point today.Thay were never worth the 3 ponts.Undone by a big guy with a free header again just like tuesday night.Poor goal ratio over the first half of the season. Harder work on the training pitch all round i reckon.Fitness no problem it appears.Just need to bring creativity out of our midfield lads.Would like to see wiles start tuesday or saturday.Hulbert greatly missed today.Isnt walker now suspended by the way after his booking?

[Stu_Barrow_Afc]

Did we not learn to give the best header of the ball in the team a free header from a corner after Tuesday?
We did ok yesterday, huffed and puffed and we had a decent 15mins at the start of the second half. Lacking the quality that the likes of Wainwright and Goodfellow gave us, but hopefully Wiles will get a start soon and show us what he's capable of. Thought Boyd did alright seen as he hasn't played much this season

[markanddawn]

the corporates cash is subject to a different level of tax/VAT to what the gate money is, .

No it isnt. VAT is charged at the same rate (17.5%) on all income the club recieves (except for a small number of things that are zero rated /exempt from VAT - such as raffles, lottery).

this is true - any fund-raising monies are exempt from VAT but im sure you have to prove this still - any generated income where people are paying for a product/serivce/entertainment are not.

bring back 15% VAT

[Scott]

Re-wind three months and we were playing the sort of football that we played yesterday. We didn't create an awful lot but at the same time we restricted Luton to few chances. I feared the worst when Bolland went off early on but Jones to his credit had a good game and probably deserved the man of the match as no one else stood out. He didn't lose a header, got some good challenges in but was it him that was supposed to be marking Hatch for their goal? Probably as I'd have said Jones was the best man for dealing with Hatch and it was almost a carbon copy of the goal Gateshead scored midweek; tallest opponent players runs in to head home unchallenged from a right wing corner.
Bond showed why he isn't a football league player with a very average performance, some terrible passes and some even worse shooting. Boyd had a decent game but we missed the aggression and industry of Hulbert.

The biggest problem though like three-four months ago was that our widemen were totally inoccuous and we were playing with nine men at times. It's blatantly obvious that Rutherford isn't good enough. He's full of running and effort but he never gets to the byline, can't cross a ball, never beats a man and doesn't do any of things that Craig Nelthorpe, Neil Wainwright, Marc Goodfellow did which made them a success for us. Carlos Logan has some talent but I don't think he'll ever have the consistency or attitude to play at this level regularly. He had a decent game on Tuesday but was more like his old self yesterday and between them our wingers contributed nothing, which meant our forwards were starved of any real service. Walker had a poor game but at times he and Chadwick linked up quite well, one case in particular where a long ball forwards was flicked on by Walker and Chadwick volleyed it over.

I was impressed with the new man, big and strong and can hold off defenders and looks similar in style to John Shaw.

The good thing for us is that we have a lot of games and points still to play for and climbing the table is easily acheivable. The bad thing is that we are now back where we were a few months ago with the squad desperately needing two/three new players to give us some quality. Unless we get people in I think we're going to be right in another relegation battle. The loan policy has done us okay in the past so here's hoping...

[Hadrian]

Why do people on here go on and on and on (you know who you are) go on for paragraphs about how we played,when, in three words....we were [SwearFilter].

Possibly because they have a more balanced opinion than yours (with which, for what it's worth, I disagree)?

[Bobaleski]

I thought yesterday we defended well ,keeping Luton to some long range shots.I expect a team like them to get at least one goal against us.But its the way it happened from a set piece yet again.What is it about set pieces we struggle to defend them and cannot use them to our advantage,Two decent positional freekicks belted into the wall, numerous wasted corners (as usual) and the various shots kicked out of the ground.I dont mind us concieding the odd goal but our ability to score is a tad worrying.I wonder what they do at these training sessions.

[markanddawn]

The biggest problem though like three-four months ago was that our widemen were totally inoccuous and we were playing with nine men at times. It's blatantly obvious that Rutherford isn't good enough. He's full of running and effort but he never gets to the byline, can't cross a ball, never beats a man and doesn't do any of things that Craig Nelthorpe, Neil Wainwright, Marc Goodfellow did which made them a success for us. Carlos Logan has some talent but I don't think he'll ever have the consistency or attitude to play at this level regularly. He had a decent game on Tuesday but was more like his old self yesterday and between them our wingers contributed nothing, which meant our forwards were starved of any real service. Walker had a poor game but at times he and Chadwick linked up quite well, one case in particular where a long ball forwards was flicked on by Walker and Chadwick volleyed it over.

agree with you here scott - nelly came on for them yday and made an immedicate impact on the game i felt for them.

[John L]

the corporates cash is subject to a different level of tax/VAT to what the gate money is, .

No it isnt. VAT is charged at the same rate (17.5%) on all income the club recieves (except for a small number of things that are zero rated /exempt from VAT - such as raffles, lottery).

so there

I was told that the money from the corporates and the gate is seperate for some financial reason but I can't remember exactly what it was.

We need to go back to basics in training. Crossing and shooting. Practice, practice, practice. The first decent cross of the game came from Wiles in the last couple of minutes and there was no one anywhere near it. Our shooting was woeful. If we got a few on target at least we'd get rebounds and chances that way. Their keeper and defence looked dodgy and we hardly tested them. Too many balls on the railway tracks.

+1
Only 2 shots on target in a home game is worrying with the possession we had, was also wondering how far away a shot has to be for it NOT to be counted as off target?

[Richard Ingham]

I was told that the money from the corporates and the gate is seperate for some financial reason but I can't remember exactly what it was.

Corporates arent counted in the gate figures I beleive because the club would be liable for VAT on them. As they also pay VAT on the income from the sponsorship package it would mean paying VAT twice which is absolutely pointless.

Perhaps the club should make a statement when announcing the gate alongs the lines of....todays gate is xyz and we also have abc corporate sponsors today?

Would that clear things up for those people who constantly have to find something to moan at?

[Stephen Leonard]

I was told that the money from the corporates and the gate is seperate for some financial reason but I can't remember exactly what it was.

Corporates arent counted in the gate figures I beleive because the club would be liable for VAT on them. As they also pay VAT on the income from the sponsorship package it would mean paying VAT twice which is absolutely pointless.

Ill clear the VAT thing up once and for all. However the money comes into the club (whether it is gate receipts, bar takings, sponsorship or corporate invoices, VAT is accounted for it at the appropriate rate. There is no danger of double counting for VAT even if the hospitality people were included in the gate figure. There are control sheets in place for the numbers paying on the turnstile and invoices are raised for the hospitality.

Perhaps the club should make a statement when announcing the gate alongs the lines of....todays gate is xyz and we also have abc corporate sponsors today?

Would that clear things up for those people who constantly have to find something to moan at?

That sounds a decent idea . I suspect (although I don't know for sure) that the reason why the hospitality numbers havent been included is in an attempt to avoid confusion initially.A few years ago the numbers in the sponsors rooms were about 20 on a good day and these histroically were not included in the gate figure (going back to pre 1999) and as they were only a few people it wouldnt have been an issue or even noticeable.
When the numbers increased significantly to say 50-60+ and in some cases over 100 it may have been thought that to start including them would actually cause some confusion as comparisons with previous years would be on a different basis and that their may be an expectation that the gate receipts should be higher than they actually were (due to the sponsors money being shown separately).

Personally I think that the gate figure should include all paying supporters (which includes the sponsors via there sponsorship package) and if the club want to announce or detail publicly how many were in each group then fair enough.

[Richard Ingham]

Ill clear the VAT thing up once and for all. However the money comes into the club (whether it is gate receipts, bar takings, sponsorship or corporate invoices, VAT is accounted for it at the appropriate rate. There is no danger of double counting for VAT even if the hospitality people were included in the gate figure. There are control sheets in place for the numbers paying on the turnstile and invoices are raised for the hospitality.

Cheers Steve.

[NUFFSAID]

I was told that the money from the corporates and the gate is seperate for some financial reason but I can't remember exactly what it was.

Corporates arent counted in the gate figures I beleive because the club would be liable for VAT on them. As they also pay VAT on the income from the sponsorship package it would mean paying VAT twice which is absolutely pointless.

Perhaps the club should make a statement when announcing the gate alongs the lines of....todays gate is xyz and we also have abc corporate sponsors today?

Would that clear things up for those people who constantly have to find something to moan at?

Moaning about being moaned at you mean? - I'm fed up of feeling guilty when the crowd figure is announced on Saturdays - a bit of transparancy goes a long way - I agree with Steve Leonard - every paying customer should be in the stats - then it stops any slanting or bias towards whatever people want people to believe.

[Richard Ingham]

Moaning about being moaned at you mean? - I'm fed up of feeling guilty when the crowd figure is announced on Saturdays - a bit of transparancy goes a long way - I agree with Steve Leonard - every paying customer should be in the stats - then it stops any slanting or bias towards whatever people want people to believe.

Why do you feel guilty? If you are there on the terraces or in the stand you have done your bit. The ones that feel guilty should be those part timers who COULD (and i know not everyone can) be there but who choose to stay away.

[donny bluebird]

I wasn't feeling guilty at the Gateshead game, but I was feeling embarrassed.
Very very poor with no excuses.