um pahars

Not sure if he's been unbanned yet after the silver coins episode at the AGM

You're probably right, but we can still live in hope. You never know, a good home win and Forest, Norwich & Barnsley losing tomorrow and it's all to play for again!!!!! I agree the odds are stacked against us, two from probably three isn't good and our current form and inability to beat even the shhtiest team in the league isn't good, but football supporters are mentalists (or gluttons for punishment)!!!!!!!

He did have an advantage with all that padding!!!!

The stories about that day are legendary, but was too young to experience them.

Here's hoping!!!!!!! But I fear it will be about £5million in total!!!!

I agree that to sell you have to have a willing buyer, but I can't believe we couldn't have raised some money had we really decided to bite the bullet. Accept Swansea's low offer for Dyer??? Let it be known Lallana, Surman & anyone else was available, even if it started a firestorm??? Anythign had to be better than Administration and I can't help but think we slept walked towards it by assuming Barclay's would never pull the plug.

Scooby was a mentalist with a comic twist (was it really performance art???). Tommac was actually serious (which is really scary as he was sniffing around the Club at some point). Whereas Sundance, Flashman, Third Bear, Nineteen Canteen is just a classic WUM (and not the brightest either as his cover story is never consistent LOL). There was another good troll on here, but I've forgotten his name, will have to rack my brains for it.

Of course dear troll, of course.:smt119:rolleyes::smt119:rolleyes: If you didn't know who I was then how come you mention me in your "first" ever post on this forum??? LMFAO. And then of course there's the PM's you've sent, along with knowing who I was a week or so into your "first" posts on this board by mentioning me by name;) If you're going to come up with a cover story, then you at least have to be consistent. Not the best troll on this board, but perhaps the funniest8-[

Well then maybe you shouldn't have come on here under your new guise of Nineteen Canteen and begin by defaming others on here with lies, false accusations and allegations that had to be removed.:smt119:rolleyes: It's all very well coming on here today in your new guise of the "respectable" Nineteen Canteen Mk VI, but sadly the legacy of your posts, wind ups, antagonism, rude and insulting PM's can't be consigned to history just because of your latest "24 hour" persona (in fact you can't even help yourself from your digs under this new persona).:cool: Keep up the good work though as you are an interesting character;)

Just a few minor points;) You must have a very broad definition of "very experienced" as Poortvliet's experience was mainly consigned to semi pro teams in the lower Dutch leagues. And they would also vanish and not be quarterly when Lowe was last at the helm and things weren't going too well. And they certainly didn't return in the last year either. And once agin it gives me no great pleasure to see other clubs being in the same position as we find ourselves in. I fail to see how the success or failure at another club acn have any bearing on us whatsoever. If it's some faint attempt to say "see it happens to others", well it is totally irrelevant and of no consolation to me, nor does it justify or mean we should accept the fact that our Club has been run appallingly in recent years.

They indeed are not world beaters, but both have shown that when given a settled and good run in a team that they will deliver. It was only last season that John finished near the top of the scoring charts depsite being in a team that got progressively worse as the season wore on (up until a spurt at the end). Both of them have had their seasons ruined through a disjointed pre season when they were out of favour and are only temporarily plugging holes in other teams. Of course they're a year (or two) older, but they are not crap.

Showing your age fella, as Forest is one ground I've been to a number of times. Think the first was about 1979 or 1980. The League games, a great 1984 Cup match right through to that freezing Cup match a few years back.

Stu alluded to this elsewhere. Would want to have a decent look at the numbers just to see how it all panned out (costs v income) and then consider what the hire charge will be against the alterntive net cost/profit of owning. Is a benefit or is it a millstone??? In principle I don't have an aversion to renting the stadium off of someone, but it's still a fairly fluid situation. Stu's point was interesting in that if the "new owners" haven't got the money to get the stadium "on the cheap" then it may not bode well for how much dosh they have!! But on the other hand, if it means we stay in existence (with the potential to perhaps buy back in the future), then why not?

We may not even make the terraces and be consigned to "The Bank" at Bemerton and a numb er of other paving slabbed standing areas in the Wessex League!!!!!

20 Forest 50 pts 21 Barneley 49 pts 22 Saints 48 pts 23 Norwich 47 pts 24 Charlton 36pts And that's with 2 home wins, a loss at Sheff Weds and drawing with Forest (so a win there and we could be safe, but that would mean 3 wins out of 4!!!!!)

Problem is that it is always a struggle to discuss things with people with multiple personalities, particularly when they're on a wind up. Now if you would be so kind as to keep one persona for at least, say 24 hours, then we might at least have a chance. If not, then how about that tagline letting us know which personality is posting each time. HTH

Do yourself a favour and content yourself wth the pathetic notion of my enemies enemy etc etc etc as it just about sums you up.

I don't normally go in for the abuse, but when he starts dishing it out then it's very easy to get drawn in to a slanging match. Sadly, he has some good things to say, but at the same time it's very dangerous just to use the internet as your source of information and then pretend you know what you're on about. Rule 34 has fck all to do with supporter ownership, influence or control (and I'm sure David Conn would put him right on that as well).

Where have you been lately?????

You've been banned numerous times before, so tell us why that was then:cool: But you did that when you were posting under your Sundance handle (which you were banned under:smt119:rolleyes:), so please forgive us if we struggle to keep up with your multiple ID's and personas;)

You need to go and read Rule 34 and really understand what it was all about then dinlo man, as it is about the restrictions on dividends, directors salaries etc etc etc The ethos was to preserve sporting and cultural aspects of football and prevent over commercialisation, but it had absolutely fck all to do with supporter ownership or influence of Club's by its supporters. Most clubs were and still are owned by shareholders and in fact in the "olden days" the share ownership and control was even more restricted. Historically most football clubs incorporated as limited companies (with a restirction on the sale and control of shares, ownership and control of the clubs). You only have to look at our own club who were probably an ideal exampe of how "old clubs" were set up and run. A few gentlemen shareholders doing their public service, but absolutley fck all supporter influence.

And tonight we have the polite Nineteen Canteen Mk VI. I wonder how many of your other guises will make an appearance tonight??? I'm going for Flashman Mk II. The Bear (original version), the odd Sundance Mk II & Mk III, ending with Nineteen Mk I.

Not the best of threads to be dredging up in this time of togetherness and unity (that's not to say I didn't have a giggle at some of the posts back then!!!).

Why it's the fans of course, as we certainly haven't been able to replicate the banana waving solidarity of the Kippax.

Should have taken whatever Swansea were offering in order to avoid administration.