CB Fry

Correct. The tories were up for it, Blair was up for it. It would have happened regardless of who was PM and we would have been there regardless. Like it or not the Brits love a bit of a war and we love being side by side with the Yanks.

....

Oh give over. If you think a Tory administration would have said no to a Republican president about a war on Saddam you're out of your mind. Don't remember seeing Thatch and Tebbit on many CND rallies in the eighties. The tories were peace-loving hippies hoodwinked into a war by bloodthirsty Blair were they? Diddums. There was far more anti-war dissent on the labour ranks than on the tory side.

And how do you know they won't do that? There are more options than a straightforward coalition. And you can't throw Iraq hypocrisy at the Liberals as Labour and Tories all voted for it, with the Conservatives easily as "up for it" as Labour. So the Liberals have to work with a pro-war party because they both were, it's hardly hypocrisy when there is no choice. And I think a stance of "vote for us, not anyone else" is a reasonable thing to say in an election campaign. You can't attack them for using "electoral judgement" by saying "vote for us". What kind of "principle" would be being upheld by a party saying "a vote for us actually means a vote for x party"? You're seeing some conspiracy when the Liberals doing what you're suggesting would be completely absurd.

Absolutely - he's been a great signing. But the kind of signing made by a club with tons of cash and even more intent. A bit like when Leeds signed Robbie Fowler, or Newcastle Asprilla, or Man United Berbatov. Great additions to the squad but not really needed at point of purchase if you see what I mean. Don't get me wrong I am not complaining about signing Barnard - quite the opposite!

Thanks for the patronising lecture, but you'll notice I mentioned Pardew before I mentioned the money spent. Thanks for attributing to me a load of cheap arguments I haven't even mentioned. Manager plus cash is what I said, and in that order. Not "cash = definitely win every single game ever" which is how you lamely decided to read it. And sorry, we are "really throwing money at getting ourselves back in the Premiership". In January we signed a player from a division above, for £1.75m who is clearly far too good for this division. And, having already one of the top five strikers in the league on our books we splashed out (wages primarily) on another top five striker who frankly we didn't really need, and he is on our bench most of the time. Pretty sure he'd stroll into any other top six team, including Leeds who wanted to buy him. Half of our bench would stroll into any bottom half CCC team, FFS. One of our reserves spent half the season in the CCC. We are chucking money around like it's going out of fashion.

You seem to be avoiding the fact that we have had instant success this season and it's down to > Pardew being perfectly capable of delivering success within 18 months, like all successful modern managers from Wenger to Moyes down to Phil Brown, Owen Coyle and Paul Lambert. > And the fact we have chucked money at the issue. Chucked money left right and centre at the best players in the division and at players better than this division. Sorry, it's not 1981 anymore. Successful managers deliver instantly. Money helps massively, especially in a division like League One. Fact, and fact. Pardew has done a brilliant job, we are top two challengers +10 points. But that achievement is not somehow divorced from the money we have chucked at the issue. It's a direct link. It winds me up when people desperately pretend that isn't the case and still make out that "money doesn't make any difference" when it is making a difference in front of our very eyes.

Quite. I've been slated all season for being a Pardew out person despite never, ever, once, ever saying anything even resembling anthing remotely close to "pardew out". Not once. Ever. All I've ever said was with the resources he has had we should expect a level of performance and results to reflect that. Standard targets you would expect anywhere, and at any football club. It's the "stick with the manager regardless" types that infect football clubs with the stench of complancey, laziness and blame-someone-else culture. Thankfully, Pardew and Cortese agree with me and not the "don't worry about winning, you've got a job for life" brigade.

A couple of posters who aren't exactly regulars posting in the heat of the moment on a post match thread. It's like the Branfoot campaign all over again There is no campaign to get Pardew out, it's just made up by people to give themselves the comfort blanket of "I told you so" superiority against some mythical uprising. But Pardew's success this season is not about "sticking with the manager" because he hasn't been here long enough to claim to have been stuck with. Nine odd months is not "sticking with the manager". Pardew has delivered instant success, the phrase that you and SOG and lots of other bores hate and pretend doesn't happen and doesn't exist. Well it does exist, at every single club that has had success in the last twenty years from Arsenal and Everton to Hull, Norwich, Forest, Leeds, Exeter and whoever else you want to name. And it's happened, this season with Pardew and Saints. Just as I said it would*. You get success in your first eighteen months or you don't get success at all. The sweet, sweet smell of instant success.

The only thing Roy Keane proves is your utter hypocrisy. If Keane was Saints manager and he had performed like that for us this season you'd be on here boring the arse off everyone about how brilliant he is doing and do you know that Lawrie Mac took blah blah blah blah blah and he must be given five more years blah blah Mourinho coulnd't do any better blah blah blah..kids today these days blah blah blah. But he's someone else's manager so you slag him off left right and centre. Much like your hypocrisy when you were using Chelsea as an example that money doens't buy success. Chelsea. Stretching the definition "no success" to absolute breaking point. But hey, just make any lame-ass contradictory argument to make the same of guff points you always do.

Only? That's as many as watch Eastenders or Coronation Street. Pretty astounding viewing figures by any measure, especially as it was pretty dull and very long.

I think you are over egging this massively - Churchill was a very old, alcoholic depressive but did okay when we needed him most. Charles Kennedy is no Churchill but there have been leaders and prime ministers with these kind of problems down the years. And were there a Leaders debate five years ago, Kennedy would have ****ed it against Howard and Blair. And I don't remember Kennedy saying he wanted out but was held in position against his will for Vince Cable's "electoral benefit". And I don't say this as a Lib Dem supporter, to make clear.

I thought it was pretty clear that my references to the three clubs and then the sentence about their league positions suggests that I was talking about their current league position and performance on the pitch. How on earth could you conclude that by "doing a Fulham" I was suggesting we move to a old ground smaller than St Mary's? And I don't agree that by "investing in the team" we are suddenly going to pull in enough regulars to justify a 45,000 seater stadium and the gigantic costs that would entail. Without investment in the team we finished eighth and got to the cup final and regardless of Cortese's ambition I don't think we can expect much better under this regime. Let's not kid ourselves we're destined for top four. We're not. Like it or not year three or four in the Prem will see crowds settle at 30,000 week in week out. If we are selling out with a waiting list then lets look at a stadium. We got good gates previously in the Prem, but we didn't have a ST waiting list and that's the kind of demand we'd need to justify moving away from a stadium which is still essentially brand new. But it is not as simple as more money > more success > more fans when we're back in the Premier League.

We'll be a Birmingham or Fulham at best, a Sheff Utd at worst. In five years time we will be somewhere between 8th in the Prem down to 12th in the CCC. We may have had a season in the Prem. I sincerely hope we won't be building a brand new stadium because five years will not be enough time to create the business case for building one. A 40-45,000 seater stadium (probably about £80m worth of mortgage) would require us selling c26,000 season tickets a season with a waiting list. For at least three seasons. Then we might start thinking about it. So 2020 maybe.

I don't think the chairman is allowed to say anything apart from barking out their names. He's not allowed to rephrase questions or pick them up on points or anything. The rules they have all agreed have conspired to make this rather drab and I think no one except the anoraks (bores like me) will watch the one on Sky next week. This isn't going to "re-energise interest in politics" I fear. And it must be costing ITV a fortune to have no ads for 90 mins of primetime.

Pardew delivered instant success. You said it couldn't be done. Pardew did it because of the fantastic investment into the team. You said money doesn't make any difference. Wrong, wrong, wrong. No one is calling for Pardew's head yet. You've been making out they've been calling for his head in your dopey dreamworld since about August. The key word is No-one.

Hope the national grid is ready for a mass switch over to Have I Got News For You at nine o'clock.

Pretty sure they drew lots. There are about 70 rules around the debates so rest assured its all been covered and agreed. Tis a bit dull in the opening exchanges, it has to be said.

If you read that thread - that "when" was the point of the discussion, but none of it was "now", which is how you read it and have been boring people about it ever since. What you're sore about is Pardew is delivering in the kind of timeframe people like me said was perfectly possible and you pompously said was unrealistic and impatient. Pardew delivered instant success and you can't stand it because it blows your arse-aching guff about needing three years clean out of the water.

Hopefully a bit of clever politicking by Pardew to keep Cortese on his toes. Let's hope Pardew doesn't end up with his bluff being called.

I've never forgotten that thread. Mainly because not one person on it wanted Pardew sacked, and neither does Alpine. And neither does anyone on here. But doesn't suit your little routine does it, so you carry on living in your dreamworld.

Eh? Pardew is delivering the success I said he could deliver and was possible from August onwards. When people on here sneer and talk down to you for believing the play offs were possible in August then yes I will come on here and crow at people like SOG who decided what I thought was "unrealistic" and I "needed a reality check" and was "impatient". Well I was right because I said the play offs were realistic back in August. So don't come on here and tell me this season is a success. I f ucking well knew it would be. Talk to the mongs like SOG who were talking about "just staying up" in August.

Not sure what you're being smug about. Pardew is proving you wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. You say there's no such thing as instant success. Wrong. You say no manager can achieve anything until they've had three years. Wrong. You say money makes no difference. Wrong. You said in August anyone who thought we'd be challenging for the play offs this season was impatient and unrealistic. Wrong and wrong. Well some us believed. In instant success. In money delivering that success. In fighting for the playoffs this season. And some of us are right. And it aint you. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Has the penny dropped yet?

Win the next two, and they are extremely winnable, and you're right. And, at that point, we then start really fu cking with the heads of Uddersfield and Colchester. Two points off with a shi te hot goal difference with a couple of games to go might see our competitors crumble.

Charlton one up against Colchester.