CB Fry

Hah. That's what happens when I start a post and then don't finish it. Don't those numbers look high though? Middlesbrough are taking, on average 6,800 away fans to every match? I'm saying no they aren't. In fact the entire 2014/15 column looks ridiculous. Bristol City taking an army of 5,000 all round the country in league one last season when the likes of Sheffield Weds and us didn't get anywhere near that in our day down there...nah. This article from a couple of years ago looks more accurate. http://origin-www.football-league.co.uk/page/AttendanceStats/0,,10794~2405279,00.html

I don't understand why it needs to be expressed as a percentage of anything. I imagine PFC do indeed have, in absolute terms, the highest or one of the highest away followings in that division. The size of it comparison to their toilet of a stadium is irrelevant isn't it? If, say, Morecombe's 250 average away following is a higher % of their 2,000 gate than Pompey 's 450 is of the Fratton gate, so what? If one of the Fratton stands was knocked down tomorrow would that suddenly make Pompey's away numbers "better"? It just feels like a meaningless calculation. Doesn't anyone just publish the average travelling fans per club per season without creating a ratio or % based around it?

I can kinda understand Chelsea ("they'll start winning this week" over and over) and Leicester ("it's got to come to an end" over and over) but West Brom? Lawro, what were you thinking?

I'm starting to think that BTF has not "bothered to research" the opinion he "proffered".

Not you though. You're jolly clever. I notice youve not linked up any ranting pro-Jezza blog posts "for the sake of balance", recently, have you? Go on, post up another and maybe the rest of us can judge your critical faculties.

14 times? Do they still do the Lawro league table? We must be flying.

I wish we were Stoke.

I'm just delighted we have just scraped ahead of our "direct rivals" West Brom, Norwich and Bournemouth. But obviously that's our level these days so no doubt we will be back where we belong soon. We will never compete with the likes of Stoke again, that's for sure.

Why is it that other clubs are so much better at everything than we are? So annoying.

Forster will not leave on a free in 2018 so let's stop worrying about that. If he carries on as he is and maybe displaces Hart then likely to attract top 4 interest but would need to become a £20m+ keeper in the process. Not bad business but in a year, I think. Tadic won't get a better offer so he will extend. Gardos probably moved on. Long likely to stay on in a Steven Davis way. Mane will only extend if his agent tells him he isn't going top 4 after all (which is possible, he's good but not sure he really is that good yet). Pelle is gone this summer.

Someone will confirm but I think we had very low possession stats against Arse in the 4-0 thumping. We clearly did not deserve to get thumped - FF is part of the team not a happy accident. His work deserved a point in itself.

Personally I think we are planning to succeed within our own terms. Not expanding the stadium is a perfectly sensible strategy - there's no evidence we can actually fill a larger stadium, meaning the only guarantee is tying up a heck of a lot of capital on what is essentially a vanity project. As long as we are in the top flight our stadium is plenty good enough to attract players, I think you are massively overstating how much players truly care: plenty took the Fratton shilling when offered. And I am not sure who we have the "smallest ground" in comparison to? We don't have the smallest ground in the Premier League. If you're comparing us to the top six then we're never going to beat them on ground size. You have to remember our "stated aim" you mention is to be best of the rest, so having a smaller ground than those clubs is something we aren't planning to change. So the only one you can point to is West Ham, but they've got lucky. They will be victim to the football gods as well and them (like us) will still be far more likely to be relegated than make the Champions League. Olympic Stadium or not, they're still bloody West Ham*. *Sudden influx of Qatar/Chinese/Russian gazillionaire notwithstanding. Under the Gold/Sullivan they will remain on the cusp of mediocrity just like us.

Yep. I don't think we can finish higher than 7th so will need some favours.

Amazed he's still here what with him falling out with the board and everything. And when is he ever going to select any of our young players like Matt Targett? When?

Are we reaping what we sowed from our summer business, or have the chickens come home to roost? I can't remember which one it is but I wish we were Stoke I wish we were Palace I wish we were Watford I wish I wish.

I guess it is mainly comparisons with Barcelona, right?

You don't really understand how football contracts work, do you?

Lots of reasons except we don't need a bigger stadium.

Nah, I think they're nailed on top 5 now. This isn't a "ooh look at Blackpool/Hull breath of fresh air" burst of surprise package good form in August. It's February and they're three clear at the top. Their form would need to tail off to West Brom-ish levels to even be in with a chance of 6th, and even then you need other clubs to step up. Too many points in the bank now - even a drab average remainder of the season (1.5 points a game) will still see them top 5. Good luck to em.

He might as well. To be fair Villa board probably right to not buy anyone - they are relegated, without question, so what's the point of spending now. It's harsh and gutting for Villa fans but they are down.

Ha. They have now.

SSN not gone with it yet.

Congratulations on triumphantly winning the Falklands debate. Can you shut up about it now?

What has that got to do with the history of the Falklands, which admittedly already has an infinitesimally small amount to do with Jeremy Corbyn's leadership of Her Majesty's opposition?