Problems In Waterford

[nigel-harps1954]

You can try and gloss it up all you like, but this is the second time Waterford have done it. Boy who cried wolf springs to mind.

[Ezeikial]

You can try and gloss it up all you like, but this is the second time Waterford have done it. Boy who cried wolf springs to mind.

If you disagree with some of the points made by the previous poster why not make rebut them, or at least give some specifics?

In my opinion, this type of trite dismissal does little to add to the discussion

[nigel-harps1954]

Opposition fans are highlighting the signing of four players, one from the local league, another two are free agents whom were with us last year and are young lads, one of which is only here for two months and the fourth been an LOI experienced player whom up until recently was playing at junior level. Yet aren't mentioning there's five official announced players that left and there's rumoured to be a number of others also leaving. If we don't sign players then we won't be able to field a team and anyone whom uses the 'Play the 19s' excuse then that's nonsense as the 19s are struggling at that level never mind putting them into senior level. That's not too mention there been a number of youth players whom are regularly in the first team. Playing a near full 19s side would see the attendances fall even further and not only that it'll kill the young fellas confidence and would affect there development which is crucial.

Are the new players getting paid? Is Bayly coming down for free? It doesn't matter what way you gloss things up, the fact is, Waterford essentially said they were going under and needed immediate backing, and have since gone out and added new players to their squad, released players or no released players, if they couldn't afford to pay players before now, how are they going to be able to pay the new players, irrespective or where or what league they came from?

Nobody is suggesting the 'play the 19's' approach. You cannot expect under-19 players to play two games a week.

There's a local junior league there. Amateur players who would only be too happy to prove themselves at a higher level. Attendances aren't going to improve anyway, so that argument is out the window from day one. Waterford are not going to win the league, and let's be honest, are unlikely to be promoted. Getting in 4 or 5 capable junior players on amateur contracts would have served Waterford much better than bringing in a handful of others on a wage, not less Bayly who won't be travelling up and down from Dublin for pittance.

People donated their money to 'the survival of Waterford United FC' and not to pay the wage of more players. €7,332 euro is the latest figure on the Go Fund Me page online. How many of those people donated their money in the knowledge that Waterford were going to be signing new players?

"Unfortunately our club now finds itself in a position where we struggling financially with the loss of our chairman of ten years John O'Sullivan leaving the club with a severe financial strain in order to survive"

If the financial stain was so large, the club simply would not be able to pay players. The exact same line was dished out a couple of years ago by Waterford who went on to sign a couple of players in the transfer window then too. It stinks to me. Stinks something absolutely foul on the part of Waterford United.

If you disagree with some of the points made by the previous poster why not make rebut them, or at least give some specifics?

In my opinion, this type of trite dismissal does little to add to the discussion

A little better, no? I didn't feel the need to justify my comments initially, given that this is the second time Waterford have pulled this charade.