SZ's Southend United Hall of Fame - Paul Clark Pt II

[A Century United]

...and there's been one.:stunned:

By New Shrimper, who posted three messages at the beginning of March and hasn't posted since. Someone has been "whipped in" by a Clark-hater, methinks - surely two can play at that game, though.

8 votes now needed to get him in.

 

[number11]

:sherlock:

As well as 'Hannah' who has posted and voted once in March....backing a nomination for the Hall of Fame made by hindle.... interesting...

Oh well, democracy at work I guess!

 

[callan]

Democracy indeed, looking at Graham_64 and I'm of to Russia in the fors vote who share the same post count history as Hannah and New Shrimper.

 

[Rayleigh Weir]

Democracy indeed, looking at Graham_64 and I'm of to Russia in the fors vote who share the same post count history as Hannah and New Shrimper.

It's still a bit harsh to lock poor old New Shrimper in your love shack until they agreed to vote against Clarkey...

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Democracy indeed, looking at Graham_64 and I'm of to Russia in the fors vote who share the same post count history as Hannah and New Shrimper.

Yes, but it only takes one 'no' vote to cancel out 9 'yes' votes. You need to come up with a further 16 dodgy examples of 'yes' votes

 

[callan]

It's still a bit harsh to lock poor old New Shrimper in your love shack until they agreed to vote against Clarkey...

Not harsh at all, she's in there to keep Hannah company.

 

[Rayleigh Weir]

Not harsh at all, she's in there to keep Hannah company.

She? - Oh, sorry, I misunderstood...

 

[OldBlueLady]

Oh FFS! Getting hacked off with this now. Bloody worked my socks off sending messages to a load of "proper" posters who hadn't voted and then we get a couple of once in a blue moon types voting on the "no" side. They probably never saw him play, and yet again we're not getting reasons.

 

[A Century United]

Oh FFS! Getting hacked off with this now. Bloody worked my socks off sending messages to a load of "proper" posters who hadn't voted and then we get a couple of once in a blue moon types voting on the "no" side. They probably never saw him play, and yet again we're not getting reasons.

To be fair, Kay, we can't object to voters on the grounds that they didn't see a particular player in the flesh. I do however object somewhat to voters with mimimal post history (and apparently little interest in Shrimperzone, as they haven't even logged on for months) being brought in to vote.

I would suggest that only voters with a minimum post count of say 30 be allowed to vote, but I can see that that would probably be unworkable.

 

[canada shrimper]

clarkey the legend

 

[Csboy]

He better get in this time or I am never going to bother voting on anything HOF related again.

 

[number11]

Well if New Shrimper and Hannah are both female, maybe we should be blaming the suffragettes and banning women from the vote on these matters ;)

 

[The Flying Scotsman]

I will vote in favour for him when it comes up again in a few months, but I am strongly of the opinion that this poll should not have been allowed to go ahead so soon after the first attempt.

 

[OldBlueLady]

I will vote in favour for him when it comes up again in a few months, but I am strongly of the opinion that this poll should not have been allowed to go ahead so soon after the first attempt.

But why? The number of people who voted no last time and expressly said it was because they had never seen him play was the reason he didn't get in. This is completely ridiculous.

If the only criteria people are going to base their decision on is of having seen them play then it makes a mockery of it. The whole point is to weigh up the testimonies and make your decision based on that. Bloody hell! People still accept that Stanley Matthews and Georgie Best were football geniuses but how many people on this board actually saw them play?

I despair, I truly do

 

[number11]

But why? The number of people who voted no last time and expressly said it was because they had never seen him play was the reason he didn't get in. This is completely ridiculous.

If the only criteria people are going to base their decision on is of having seen them play then it makes a mockery of it. The whole point is to weigh up the testimonies and make your decision based on that. Bloody hell! People still accept that Stanley Matthews and Georgie Best were football geniuses but how many people on this board actually saw them play?

I despair, I truly do

I really tried to push Clarky through on the last vote and like you thought it irrational the way some people voted without good reason.

However, unfortunately he didn't make it and whilst I have again been a supporter of him in this vote, I do think a time limit of say two months should be given between someone being allowed to re-nominate, otherwise there is a danger of peoples choices being crowbarred in and the election being a hollow one.


Putting that aside, Clarky was one of my first Southend hero's and the Hall of Fame would better for him being in it.

 

[callan]

But why? The number of people who voted no last time and expressly said it was because they had never seen him play was the reason he didn't get in. This is completely ridiculous.

If the only criteria people are going to base their decision on is of having seen them play then it makes a mockery of it. The whole point is to weigh up the testimonies and make your decision based on that. Bloody hell! People still accept that Stanley Matthews and Georgie Best were football geniuses but how many people on this board actually saw them play?

I despair, I truly do

As said before in the first poll I have seen Clark play, and in my opinion whilst being a good servant to the club, was certainly not a legend.
I recall Blueblood stating the same in the first poll.
How do you know what the no voters are basing their vote on this time round?
As for the Best and Matthews analogy that is ludicrous as there is so much film footage of the pair of them, whereas I would suspect little for clark.

 

[OldBlueLady]

How do you know what the no voters are basing their vote on this time round?

We don't that's the whole point. Very few are saying. If it's a protest vote like TFS's then, although I don't agree because I still consider the 1st vote to have been unfair, I can at least understand it.

As number11 says though, he should be in. If Spinner now gets in (which he will as he's a modern day hero) I'm going to be furious because without Clark, there wouldn't have been a Spinner.

 

[callan]

We don't that's the whole point. Very few are saying. If it's a protest vote like TFS's then, although I don't agree because I still consider the 1st vote to have been unfair, I can at least understand it.

As number11 says though, he should be in. If Spinner now gets in (which he will as he's a modern day hero) I'm going to be furious because without Clark, there wouldn't have been a Spinner.

I see, so you are speculating on why there are no votes.
Was Clark Spinners dad then?, never knew that!!!

 

[number11]

As said before in the first poll I have seen Clark play, and in my opinion whilst being a good servant to the club, was certainly not a legend.
I recall Blueblood stating the same in the first poll.
How do you know what the no voters are basing their vote on this time round?
As for the Best and Matthews analogy that is ludicrous as there is so much film footage of the pair of them, whereas I would suspect little for clark.

Unfortunately this thread is reflecting badly on the original excellent concept by YB. My view is that Clark should be in there without a doubt, but if he loses this vote, so be it, its not for lack of effort (especially with thanks to OBL and her championing of the worthy cause).

Equally, you cant really criticise posters for holding a view having seen him play or posters going by the testimony of others or what they have heard and voting no. The creation of other profiles, or rounding up other posters with little interest in this board does seem a pity as it is only going to serve to skew the true view of the board. My Girlfriend has registered with this site for about 5 months but would have no idea who clark is so I havent asked her to vote.....otherwise it just comes down to who can be more bothered to try to rig the vote, and that's a shame and doesn't really seem to be in the spirit of what we are trying to achieve.....recognise the true greats from our history.

 

[OldBlueLady]

I see, so you are speculating on why there are no votes.
Was Clark Spinners dad then?, never knew that!!!

From Spinner's Testimonial Programme:

Paul Clark - the man responsible for turning Spencer Prior into a defender always knew he had what it took to excel in that position.

Paul Clark, himself a classy centre-back, changed Prior from a striker into a member of the back four.

And Clark insists it was his pace and aerial ability which made the alteration obvious.

"Spencer would never have made it as a centre forward in a million years and that's what led to the change," recalled Clark who made 359 appearances for Blues and also managed the club.

"He was six foot four inches tall and was also quick and very athletic so he had all the basic attributes needed to be a defender.

"In those days the game was a bit different and you needed to be a big lump to excel but he also had that bit of pace you need to get yourself out of trouble and he went on to do well for Southend and the rest of his career as well."

and

Things could have been different for Prior though as he actually started his spell in the Seasiders youth team as a misfiring striker.

"I was absolutely useless," he recalled. "Then one day in training over at Gloucester Park Paul Clark was taking a training session and put me as a defender against the strikers in a finishing drill.

"I certainly gave as good as I got and from that day on I became a defender."