CB Fry

The hysteric on that thread would be you, because no one was calling for Pardew to be sacked in that thread, but it didn't stop you spending the entire season bleating on about it. And this time last year it was you hysterically sneering and mocking anyone that predicted success for Pardew and the team, calling us immature and unrealistic. You forecast failure for Pardew last season and you were proved wrong, wrong, wrong. Pardew delivered sweet, sweet instant success and your hysterics last year were proved to be the garbage I said it was at the time.

Tell us again about how you have less debt than almost any other club in the Prem. That was just brilliant. And how right you were.

Being that everything you have ever written on this forum about the Echo (which is a hell of a lot) is uninformed, uneducated but at the same time teeth achingly pedantic drivel, I think it would help a lot. Go on, tell us about the time you didn't get through a job interview at the Echo. Everything you post about it screams of a failed and frustrated journalist.

Indeed. I think it was said some time ago that Pompey have sacrificed at least the first two years of parachute payments - the PL is distributing them to football creditors. No creditor on earth, and certainly not the taxman, is going to take a pittance only to watch Pompey spunk parachute payments up the wall on wages and transfer fees.

What is easy to forget in the battle for the playoffs is getting there is really not an achievement, because the whole point is getting promoted. You can't slate a team for "wasting a play off spot" because three always will and Huddersfield finished sixth so the most likely to "waste" it. We knew what we had to do, we fell short but not through lack of effort. And we'll be playing Huddersfield next season, and Huddersfield will be playing us.

SOG is the self appointed leader of the "give every manager five years regardless of results" arse-aching pontificators, droning on about how impatient people are and related pompous tedious guff. But then his routine on NC shows what a hypocritical arse he is, deciding that our chief exec is a wrong 'un on zero evidence and uneducated guesswork. But then he delivered the same damning judgement on Pearson on the strength of a handful of games. SOG is as childishly impatient as anyone else on this forum. The Lowe comparisons are pointless at this stage because one year in Lowe was actually doing quite well. Dave Jones had just won LMA manager of the year and we were higher than we'd been since the Bally season five years earlier. Cortese is doing at least as well as that, and at the moment looks like achieving a lot more than Lowe subsequently did. So any chance SOG might just belt up and let the man get on with it?

Tory Majority of 10 to 20. All those people telling Pollsters "ooh I do like that Nick Clegg" were full of it. Straight in the booth and on the Tories.

I'd suggest Michael Gove would be a journalist, a career he was doing incredibly well in only a few years ago.

Postal vote.

Polling card says the stations close at 10pm. So closing them at 10pm sounds fair enough.

Correct. Sounds like a load of div students bumbling down there from the pub with no polling cards which slows everything down for everyone else. Frigging stations opened at 7am FFS.

Roeder led WHU to seventh the following season, and they only went down on the last day the season after that. So if you are blaming Redknapp for a relegation two years after he left then yes, it was all his fault.

Spurs have spent absolutely cr ap loads of money. And "money is a guarantee of success" was pretty much your catchphrase on this forum and its predecessors FOR YEARS when you would blather on about "why don't we just buy Michael Owen" and rant about "if only we'd invest in the team etc etc etc etc" But of course this was when we were skint and it was a comfortable theory. Now we are by a country mile the richest club in the division you've retreated into the familar surroundings of money doesn't mean anything etc etc etc etc etc etc. The only money that guarantees success is unspent money. As soon as it is spent it becomes "irrelevent" and everyone just moves on to something else we haven't got instead. Hence the unbelievable hyping up of the lack of pre-season this time round*.

Damn, I knew someone would quote me. Forget it, I agree with the OP - the terminology of "brave work of genius" led me to believe he was taking the ****. It was the right decision to nationalise but "brave work of genius" is pushing it.

....

The usual garbage about population and potential from delusional Plymouth fans. 10,000 gates in the Championship is not much potential and crowing about how their city is bigger than Derby, Leicester or Southampton is pretty meaningless, as those three clubs have double the core support as all three commanded 20,000 gates in L1. Presumably PAFC will be down to 8,000 odd in L1. You can't just wait for promotion to the Prem and suddenly expect 30,000 to come streaming through the turnstiles. The same thing has been said about Bristol for time immemorial. Maybe, if one of them got into the Prem and stayed there for a half a decade, they might have a sustainable Saints-Derby-Forest-Leicester-Wolves sized fan base. But it's a long road.

That doesn't look anything like Neil Shipperley. It does, however, look like someone who has eaten Neil Shipperley.

Sorry, how is what I posted before trolling? Especially as I am right. You go on about the agents being circumspect, but surely in the current climate, where clubs know they have to pay every single penny of every single contract the clubs would be far more circumspect wouldn't they? But they're not, just like agents wouldn't be in your reverse situation. Since when are the football agents the ultra cautious ones? Footballers and football agents don't enter contract negotiations thinking about the club going under, just like Peter Storrie and his ilk entered his negotiations not thinking about the club going under. You could easily apply your logic to imposing the current "pay 100% back" with exactly the same rationale: the clubs would be more circumspect, they wouldn't be so risky commiting to contracts they can't possibly get out of etc etc etc. Your theory that a normal creditors rule would solve football's problems is just that. A theory. In practice, it would make the clubs even more risk-happy because they know they can waltz out of it. Punting left right and centre knowing the worst that can happen is paying back a fraction of it. And are you seriously suggesting agents will tell their clients - "nahhh, don't take £60k a week, not sure they can afford it two years in. Take £30k a week instead". "Don't sign for that club offering £50k a week. Sign for that club for half the amount". "I'm very circumspect about that club, I think they might be run by unsavoury characters. Under no circumstances accept their offer of £80k a week plus image rights". This is FOOTBALL AGENTS you are talking about. FOOTBALL AGENTS. Clubs don't go under two minutes after these contracts are signed, they go under two years later. I'd take £60k a week for two years and risk 25% for the last year rather than £30k a week for three years. Not least because you can get yourself transferred in the third year anyway. You're in a fantasy, fantasy, fantasy land of "circumspect" football agents. There's more vegetarian butchers around. Don't come up with theories as fact and then accuse me of trolling. I'm not trolling, I just think that Portsmouth should not get off scott free, paying 25% of what they owe and back in the game next season thank you very much. Think, think, think about the implications of your theories before you accuse me of trolling. Says the person who wants Pompey off scott free quicker than anyone else but cutting their obligations down by 75%, and encourages every other football club to massively increase their short term risk but bringing in a safety net where they can write off their major debts by 75% at a stroke two years down the line. But who cares, that club have cheated another out of the Prem, or to the cup final in that time. But who cares, we'll be back next season to do it all again because we only had to find 25%. Welcome to the new age of cheating.

That's definitely not the design the chief steward's brother's mate's brother showed my brother's mate's brother. And he'd know.

Are you resigning, or are you someone whose departure would have an impact? Only asking because it's pretty easy to be fantasy axeman in any company. Easier in the public sector, granted.

You've already made that point on this thread and quoted the same bit from me twice. Have a banana. We won the cup tie, the game was drawn. If I was doing the program, I'd put W too. Who cares anyway. My contribution to this debate is over.

That's a pretty long post with a link to the history books or something - and I'm overcomplicating things. 2-2 is a draw, as is 1-1 as is 0-0. It's not about "league and cup rules". It's a draw. That isn't complicated. And a goal is not a goal in a penalty shoot out. If they were they'd be added onto the score as they went in and they'd be included in the players goal tallies for the season. Scored penalties are not "goals". Not complicated. And how many times do you divs need to go on about the fact we WON the cup ties on penalties. You're pretending I don't know that. Using CAPITALS doesn't make you more right. I know we WON. We were the WINNERS. We WON on the WINNING front. When it comes to being WINNERS we WON. We WONdiddly WONWONWON WON. The match finished in a draw though. What we WON was the cup tie. Thanks for reminding me. Again, not complicated. Good luck in getting penalties included in the history books on strikers tally for the season. After all, a goal is a goal and it's not complicated

I'd agree - cup games are "runs" in themselves so to chuck them into "winning (or losing) streaks is a bit pointless. But then we wouldn't have this argument every few weeks with opinions slightly more entrenched than in the debate on whether Ireland should be united or not.

5p/20p/30p whatever is still a let off for the club.I don't want to see Pompey walking away from three quarters of their footballing debt scott-free and ready to go again next season. I want to see them pay back every penny they said they could pay. That's fair on all the other clubs. Pompey have cheated and you want them off the hook. I don't think clubs should be given an even blanker* cheque than they already have now and the chance to splash out even more safe in the knowledge that if it all goes pop they can squirm out of it anyway. Players and clubs being "circumspect"? Do me a favour. The rule that Storrie would have to pay every single penny of every single contract he signed with players didn't make him "circumspect", so how would the knowledge that he (or any chairman) would only have to pay a quarter of it make them more circumspect? Bonkers logic I'm afraid. And football players and agents don't waste time being circumspect from what I can see. I can see them just asking for lots more in anticipation of getting 25% of it down the line. I can see them asking for more money up front so it's in the bank nice and early. It's unfortunate for the other creditors - in an ideal world they should pay everyone back in full - but you can't have everything. The rule as it is is better than the alternatives, which would make a free-for-all even worse. What you have to remember is that Pompey would bite your hand off to pay the Pie-man and the players all 25% and say no more about it. They'd be laughing all the way to the bank and back up the CCC in no time scott free with pretty much no lessons learnt and no real punishment. If that's what you really want just to get one over "greedy footballers" then fine.

I love this debate. Who's saying we didn't win? Of course we won. We won on penalties. Not sure why the counter argument is always this. No one is ever saying we didn't win. No one is saying Man U didn't win the Champion's League or whatever example you want to wheel out. And no one is saying the games didn't go to complettion either. I don't bet so have no idea what bookies say or not. But the match was drawn and when you look at records of W/D/L, those games go in the D column. Look at the scores. The scores say 1-1. Or 2-2. Or 0-0. They don't say 9-7 or 7-5 with the penalties added on. Drawn football match. Tie won on penalties. Penalties are not "goals".