um pahars

Well you missed the thrust of my argument which was more to do with the bullsht eminating from the Club over his success to date and how his CV was embellished/massaged to make him sound more successful then he really was. There were omissions and gaping holes in it which delved further just highlighted how we had effectively appointed a rather poor lower/non league manager with some pretty low level experience. That would be a massive difference from judging the two you have mentioned as they would be at the start of their managerial careers and not someone who had spent the majority of their careers in the Low Countries ameteur leagues. Those two have no track record, whereas Poortvliet had a rather medicore track record (at best) in the Dutch lower and non leagues. And if you really don't think he was out of his depth, then I think I've just wasted two minutes of my life replying to you:rolleyes:

To be fair to Sparv he's spot on with his assessment. In the period when he was 17ish -19ish we did go through Sturrock, Wigley, Redknapp, relegation, Basset/Wise, Woodward, Burley, Burley bringing in players in summer of 2006 and everything that goes with it etc etc etc. Not the best background when you're developing as a youngster and trying to break through in the first team. That said, I think like many youngsters maybe he was not able to step up to the plate irrespective of the chaos in the background.

I totally agree that both Lowe and Wotte must also take their share of the blame. Lowe should never have appointed Poortvliet and should never have been involved in the footballing side. That was the fundamental mistake, appointing someone beyond their capability (he obviously didn't learn from his previous errors). And Wotte of course was a key player in the revolutionary Coaching Set Up in those early days, and whilst it was suggested Poortvliet had the final say you can rest assured that Wotte was right in the mix as well (along with Kim van Der Waals of course;)). I don't want to do a Wotte and hang Poortvliet out to dry, as the major problem lay with Lowe, but he really was awful!!!!!

Poortvliet surely has to be our worst manager ever (or at least in living memory). Whilst he was certainly more personable than Branfoot and came across better, I'm afraid I would even have to rate Branfoot above Poortvliet as Jan was just so out of his depth!!!!

You're quite right, in that it is a small minority, so my message would be not to let a couple of wakners on here let you think we're all dinlo's.

Well at least he's back to the circa 5,000 seat stadiums that he's used to!!!!! How did we ever end up with a manager with the gravitas of Poortvliet I'll never know.

Branfoot's form was probably better than the Revolutionary Coaching Set Up, but I'm not hearing many Bring Back Branfoot cry's!!!!!

So maybe you could explain why he was talking to Ismailythree weeks ago. Of course with everything being up in the air he has every right to sort his future out, but he was not going to go down with the ship he helped sink!!!!!!!!

Sounds as though Van Stee is about as happy with Wotte as Poortvliet was when he left!!!!!

Appointed January, relegated in May. Or are you suggesting we give the Revolutionary Coaching Set Up even more time. Then again you were all up for giving Poortvliet more time;)

I just found it rather amusing how your main thrust was that Leicester had kept their team intact, only then to say "actually I didn't pay to much attention to them";) I do think you're being somewhat pessimistic there (unless the new board appoint a joke like Poortvliet!!!) and although coming in late will make the job slightly harder, I just don't see Wotte as being able to do anything even if he has all pre season, given what we have seen of him. Even if this drags on to the start of the season and Fry is still in charge, then I reckon he would be up for pushing Wotte to the background and bringing in someone better.

It's not that difficult to find out about, Leicester didn't manage to impose a media blackout on their players and their appearances. Before trotting out stuff as fact, particularly if you "didn't pay too much attention to them", you could always go and do some digging. 20th June. Just type in "Pearson apponted Leicester". So if our new owners get their act together and pull this off they could appoint the new man at about the same time for this season. I'm sorry, but the idea we go with Wotte in preference to a better manager just because Wotte will have a longer pre season is IMHO absurd. I'm sure having a longer pre season would be of benefit to the new guy, but if that is not possible the he will just have to make do. I really can't think of one scenario where I'd go for the worse option, even if the new guy didn't rock up until the opening game of the season.

Should have stopped there;)

He can't anymore as he's turned off his PM system;) Probably the only way the weirdo could stop himself from sending out unsolicited PM's :smt046

But the post was not cryptic and both Scally and The Gaffer have been open about who they are. As with the thread about Nick I and The Echo methinks the problem lies with the reader and not the initial poster.

Wotte notte clue. Who had that placard??

I absolutely agree on that one. After his contributions last season, firstly to the Revolutionary Coaching Set up and then secondly at the helm on his own, then I have to say I don't want him anywhere near the first team.

But getting back to the OP, I think that this is more to do with the language barrier than Wotte being bumptious. I think he really means if MLT wants to help the club then we should welcome him.

Pearson 13 games = 16 points 1.23 points per game (57 points over a season, 15th & mid table) Wotte 18 games = 19 points 1.06 points per game Interesting;)

So much depends on the takeover going through and just what comes out the other side. But then agian I would agree and say that regardless of whether we're supposed to be self sufficient or whether we got a small shot in the arm, we should be looking for the play offs and a good go at promotion next season. -10 is certainly a handicap but it's certainly not a barrier to promotion.

Oh the ironing!!!!!!! Third Bear, Flashman, Sundance, (the other two or four I have forgotten) and now Nineteen Canteen, surely you can't have forgotten your multiple anonymous identities, your e-mails, your very many wind ups etc etc etc. One of the funniest threads for a while.

You're quite right , there's no way you'd get all of his multiple identities in a maisonette and you'd need alot of bedroom walls to put the Charlton, Leeds, Villa, Salisbury, Aldershot etc flags, posters and scarves up;)

But surely if you're a pundit in the first place and have got a long term TV contract, then you're hardly likely to then be off to become a manager as that's not your career choice.

The optimist in me thinks we have a chance of reaching the play offs, and if so, then given our -10 start we would have to be one of the stonger sides in them (Leeds and MK Dons finsished quite a bit ahead of 6th placed Scunny, so we should be looking to emulate those two). If not, then I think we can't afford not to go up the following year if we are to make great strides in 5 years. Anymore than two seasons down here will be very hard work!!!! The problem is that after gaining promotion to the Championship, I think another promotion will be a huge ask. We'll be up against clubs falling out of the Premiership with decent parachute payments & decentish players(e.g. Newcastle), the yo yo teams who seem to have a grasp on what is needed to get promoted (e.g. West Brom & Birmingham) and a whole host of other teams performing well and/or backed by people. Five years to be back in the Premiership would be great, but I think it's a bloody big ask!!!!!

The Trust can happily exist in its own right even after its small shareholding in SLH PLC is no more. When the Trust was first established it had no shares in the PLC and it is not a pre requisite of a Trust that it has to own shares in its respcetive club. Whether it should carry on, whether it has any support, whether it needs a new focus/direction etc etc etc are totally separate arguments, but the Trust does not have to fold with the cessation of the PLC.