um pahars

My mistake, you did say very good. With all due respect, relying on this place and the fact it was full of praise is hardly a ringing endorsement of playing very good at the start of the season. I much prefer to look at results, the table and not rely on those who were optimistic and willing a new manager to do well (as we all were back then). We had the odd glimpse of propaganda football, but ultimately the table never lied and we were anything but very good last season.

A very good start to the season?????? After four games, 20th, 3 pts. After eight games, 20th, 8 pts. After twelve games, 21st,12 pts After sixteen games, 21st, 16 pts Did you see us play?????

You're quite right that I am not aware of the full nature of your mental health problems, not that I ever claimed to either, I just feel that your personal issues shouldn't really be a reason for ridicule etc on this forum. And as soon as I read the thread I posted as I felt it verged on bullying and given your public admission of your mental problems I felt it was unjustified and somewhat cruel. I find it hard to see why you're knocking me for sticking up for you regarding your problems, when you and others did exactly the same thing. Barking was totally unintentional and I would never intentionally use a play on words in a cheap attack on your personal condition. I will happily spa with you, wind you up and think you're an attention seeking, multiple identitied, rude PM'ing, liar, but I wouldn't use your mental health problems as a stick to beat you with.

You seem to be barking up the wrong tree. I have been very defensive with regards people having a pop at you recently due to being aware of your mental health problems. In fact, I advised the administrators to close a thread that was personally attacking you as I felt that given your own public admission of your mental illness issues it was unnecessary and verging on bullying. I will still share some banter and fun with you (I'm sure at both of our ego's expense), but I would never use your mental health problems as a stick to beat you with.

Absolutely. As I said elsewhere I have to chuckle at those who appear to have somehow read that we all think Pearson is the Messiah from what has been posted up here. Strange, but highly comical.

Yeah particularly those that have a pop at others when itheir crusade has nothing to do with them. Then of course you've got those who happily throw about general abuse at their fellow supporters. Then of course you've got those who start threads telling you what you can and can't post, and then get all upset because their restrictions somewhat stifle the debate. go and have a look in the mirror fella.

Did you see many games during that 13 game run??? We were definitely poor in some, but we were also pretty good in others, so I'm afraid I really struggle to agree with your carte blanche assessment. And of course ultimately we survived, so job done (plus the Leicester games I saw last year showed a pretty decent team with creatvity and a decent pattern of play, top scorers, fewest conceded and only 4 defeats). As for being 9 points clear, then sorry just not correct.

Great logic fella. Start your pop with the names of those who have nothing to do with your following moan. Brilliant.

I think the suggestion is that he is being pushed by Mandaric;)

tbf as I said in my first reply, that's how the thread seems to you, because I certainly don't see it as a "love in" or a desire to raise Pearson to "Messiah" status. And how I would have settled for only just this season. Given the criteria set out when Pearson arrived then surely his tenure here was a modicum of success, followed by definite success at Leicester. Pearson wasn't the Messiah, nor was he the finished article by any stretch of the imagination. I was referring to the style and manner, not the end result. See it is easy to read and assume different things from what people post up on here. And I'm sure there are, so if you want to suggest some then i'd be happy to discuss the merits (or not ) of appointing them. Given that Pearson's name was mentioned in a paper report, then no matter how much of a long shot it appears, then I don't think there's anything wrong with discussing the merits (or not) of a potential return.

I've never been shy in saying we needed to cutback across the board, and that there would be no sacred cows with regards implementing Plan B. It is my opinion however that we should doing all we can within our financial limits to gain whatever advantage we can. And IMHO the money spent on Malcolm could/would be beneficial. You won't see my name on a FaceBook petition, so maybe your initial post should have been directed at those who you felt were acting in that manner.

At a very much reduced rate from the market valuation at the time (to take account of the debt they would also inherit). And although there was an offer, we never looked like we were being sold. PS I also wonder if there would have been some debt renegotiation at the outset, or at a later date.

I certainly didn't know the first of those points, but did have knowledge of the second (and also the reduction he was willing to take) and IMHO the sums involved aren't much. And my comments were never based on gesture politics, they were based on trying to give the team any advantage, and I thought this would be a good shout given the sums involved.

I don't think Sundance/Flashman/Nineteen/Bear was using his mental health issues as a justification for his trolling. Instead, I think he was asking for people to give him the benefit of the doubt/try and understand his position, as he accpeted his mental helath problems probably came through in some his postings. That said, IMHO we should be minded to steer of personal slights in this area, whilst still giving and taking the banter on a site like this.

Not really sure what you're saying, as we never looked like we were being sold either until we went into administration and there was a chance to get some of the debt wiped off. I assume the same will happen with Charlton in that people will always be thinking about buying them after a load of debt has been wiped off. I think what is different with them is that some of the debt is owed to Directors and also the new consortium is fronted by ex-Directors so may be there will be some negotations.

I can see where you're coming from, as if the new owners are willing to splash the cash then why not set our sights higher than Pearson. However, if they're going to be somewhat frugal, then Pearson certaiinly ticks a few boxes (not least his experience in Div 3 last season).

Then maybe you shouldn't have put me at the forefront of your reply then, because my posts on this thread aren't bandwagon jumping by any strecth of the imagination, instead just commenting on how I think such a move "could" be beneficial for the success of the team on the pitch.

My pre-requisite's for any successful team are a leader and then someone who would die for the cause (may even be the same player). I don't think we've had one/two in recent years so have to agree with you 100%. Could Wotton fulfil one of those roles? Personally not sure, so i would be out on the hunt for someone.

Mr Multiple Identity Boy, if only we'd JUST survived last year and if only we'd JUST avoided administration last season as well, what a year we would have had. JUST. JUST. JUST. Wotte and Pearson share a TION. Wotte = RelegaTION and AdministraTION Pearson = SalvaTION;) Keep on trolling:smt073:smt039

I haven't for one minute suggested we should be run as a charity, nor that we should be re-appointing ex employees for sentimental reasons, nor that they should be re-employed to spite Lowe and others etc etc etc. My rationale for re-employing Malcolm is solely down to seeing first hand the impact and effect he has around the Club, Staplewood and the high regard he is held in by many players, and then by thinking that could in some way contribute to success on the pitch. Of course that's my perception and it is all subjective and hypothetical, but having seen Malcolm in action first hand and spoken to many at the Club, then I think I am speaking from a reasonable position of strength in this issue. So with regards what the **** do I know?, then in this instance I would say quite a bit.

I do chuckle when people somehow see a Pearson love in, or claim they are seeing Pearson elevated to Messiah status etc etc etc. I think what you'll find is a recognition that Pearson did a pretty decent job here in keeping us up. He didn't prove himself to be the next big thing, he just simply did what was asked of him and installed a bit of belief and passion. I think you'll also find a recognition that Pearson did a pretty decent job in getting Leicester to win their league with relative ease in a similar style and manner as he did with us. And then as a result of those recent "successes" and his recent "history" with us, then you'll find alot of people thinking that it might actually be a pretty good fit. A manager who has recently worked here, knows the set up and knows many of the players, along with recent experience in getting out of what will probably be a tough league seems to tick quite a few boxes for me.

Why is it ridiculous? He is as active and capable as he was a year ago. He is still held in high regard by a number of players and there must be a simple way of accomodating him in the new set up without putting others noses out of joint. IMHO his experience and can do attitude particularly looking after the various needs of the players (way in excess of just sorting out the kit) would mean that for his relatively small salary we would see a very decent return. What is ridiculous is your blind rejection without any valid reason and without being privy to any relevant knowledge or information.

Well if you don't know him then why the jibes rearding his age (it could only be regarding his ability to do the job). With regards who does the job now, then the individual concerned was already employed at the Club and had to take on the extra duties. Given the sums involved (and Malcolm was willing to take a substantial pay cut before Lowe booted him out) I would have thought it was totally feasible to accomodate both of them. Malcolm was much more than just an old fuddy duddy kitman doing the washing, and the regard he is held in by a range of players (young and old) mean I would happily see him back in the fold. One of the reasons for his return is the camaraderie, the spirit, the respect and the support he gave many of our players over a number of years. A wealth of experience and empathy that probably paid for itself many, many times over. He was one of the few solid and reliable pillars during the revolving managerial door policies we have recently experienced.

So I presume you know Malcolm to be able to comment on his abilitied (or lack of them) to perform the duties, and I also presume you are aware of his relationship with the players?? Because if you do, then I doubt you would be saying the above.

That's what people were saying last close season;)