um pahars

You're a bit slow, he was saying the same stuff almost a month ago: “Now we have to get behind the new manager, we have to give him a chance." “I want the club to survive and prosper." “I also agree with Matt Le Tissier when he said the fans have got to unite behind the new manager."

I can assure you that I was on the right march:rolleyes: Come and have a walk next time and have a chat with your fellow fans, as opposed to just blowing off on here. I'll even make up a "special UN style blue flak jacket" for you, so that your presence won't added to the total. You might get to see how there was much more that united people on that leisurely stroll, than divided them, despite your poor efforts to suggest otherwise.

Personal??? You post up here and others, including myself, respond, augment, agree and perhaps ask quetions of. You're quick to demand answer of others and equally quick to deride their opinions and actions, so how come you've now morphed into a wallflower? Have to say I didn't think I insulted you, apologies if you were offended. But then again considering you've labelled posters, fools, bitter fools, drama queens, miserable, not very bright, bitter old fool, arrogant, obsessive, fool filled with spite, moronic, immature idiot, and embarrassment (got bored at this point), then I have to say it's quite laughable how all of a sudden you've suddenly become extremely precious!!!! Organising the protest, I'd call it more facilitating and arranging, but as I have said before, I don't think everyone is lining up behind all of Connor's thoughts and ideas, not least because I doubt we've all managed to have a cosy chat with him. I think the general stated aim has been made clear by a number of posters - A change at the very top and the desire that this would help move this Club forward. I'm not really sure what you're trying to achieve by polarising the argument and trying to concentrate on the small minutia of individual's opionions and views??? So at last you've accepted that everyone will not have exactly the same opinion, so at least we've got over that hurdle. And I would conjecture that the overwhelming majority (if not all) of those on the marhces were in agreement with the overall general aim, noted above. I would think it is up to individuals themselves to regularly reconsider their position in the light of a fluid situation. I don't for one minute think those who are protesting are the dumb sheep blindly following the organisers that you would like us to think they are. I personally can see no problem with supporting the team 100%, whilst seeking a change in the Boardroom and amongst the Senior Management of the Club. After all, following these protests the team have taken 4 points from two promotion challenging teams;).

I was actually visualising all the screen in screen shots of the games and whatshisname flicking between each game, with Kamara, Matty, Nicholas and whoever having heart attacks every 2 minutes etc etc etc. I was more than aware that you are allowed to go to games and I will probably be doing this one, but then again assuming we'll only get an allocation of circa 3,000, I would imagine the vast majority of our fans will be watching the events unfold on Sky;)

Are you asking him on a personal level or are you trying to suggest that by gaining some publicity and speaking to the Echo, this young ballsy lad must therefore speak for us all? And as I posted on another thread, I think you're being rather obtuse here, slightly disengenuos and at risk of becoming slightly boring. Like most marches/demonstrations/campaigns, people often come together from a multitude of standpoints, beliefs and desires to form an alliance. Very often, they're a coalition of forces brought together by an overwhelming common belief. Your notion that everyone has to be singing exactly from the same song sheet and all views must be identical is slightly weird IMHO. I would hazard a guess that the common belief that the marchers connected to SFC have held is that the Club is being run in a rather poor manner and that change at the top is needed. And I'm sure that within the marches there have been a number of inidividual beliefs about how this can be rectified. Indeed, just as when we ever search for a manager, whilst there is normally a common view that we need to replace (or find) a manager, there is very much disagreement over who thast replacement should be. However, that in no way undermines the initial general perceived and agreed assumption that change is needed. Your continued efforts to try and polarise the argument and focus on one area in particular are disengenuous, if not risible. Personally, I was campaiging for a restructure of the Boardroom to ensure we have the best possible set up and backing for the manager of the day. At the moment that man is Wotte and I would like a Board and backroom set up that gives him the best chance to succeed on the pitch. In demonstrating and taking part in the march, I did not have any problems lining up against others who may not sure that exact personal viewpoint and I never felt the need to mirror, stand behind or even criticise anyone else's individual comments or beliefs. The very fact that you have a problem is something you need to address on a personal level (actually I don't think you do have a problem with it, but instead you're trying to make mileage out of it by pretending to for some reason) .

What a strange analysis!!!!! Freedom of speech gives people the right (within reason) to do as they feel. How you, and others perceive it is irrelevant to that initial right to free speech. There's no fine line between free speech and how in exercising it, you are perceived. Once again I think you're being rather obtuse here, slightly disengenuos and at risk of becoming slightly boring. Like most marches/demonstrations/campaigns, people often come together from a multitude of standpoints, beliefs and desires to form an alliance. Very often, they're a coalition of forces brought together by an overwhelming common belief. Your notion that everyone has to be singing exactly from the same song sheet and all views must be identical is slightly weiord IMHO. I would hazard a guess that the common belief that the marchers connected to SFC have held is that the Club is being run in a rather poor manner and that change at the top is needed. And I'm sure that within the marches there have been a number of inidividual beliefs about how this can be rectified. Indeed, just as when we ever search for a manager, whilst there is normally a common view that we need to replace (or find) a manager, there is very much disagreement over who thast replacement should be. However, that in no way undermines the initial general perceived and agreed assumption that change is needed. Your continued efforts to try and polarise the argument and focus on one area in particular are disengenuous, if not risible. Personally, I was campaiging for a restructure of the Boardroom to ensure we have the best possible set up and backing for the manager of the day. At the moment that man is Wotte and I would like a Board and backroom set up that gives him the best chance to succeed on the pitch. In demonstrating and taking part in the march, I did not have any problems lining up against others who may not sure that exact personal viewpoint and I never felt the need to mirror, stand behind or even criticise anyone else's individual comments or beliefs. The very fact that you have a problem is something you need to address on a personal level (actually I don't think you do have a problem with it, but instead you're trying to make mileage out of it by pretending to for some reason) .

I can't see how you could hate him. Of course he was out of his depth and probably our worst manager ever, but he never intended to be that way, nor did he come across as an ar5e. But back to the subject, of the recent lot, both WGS & Sturrock would get a warm welcome from me.

Not at the same time we didn't. I've never met SaintRobbie (and I can justify that, I think).

Lost me a bit as most threads aren't closed, they jusy come to their natural end. Was just wondering if there was a new approach on here with Mods having to ask people to "justify" their posts, so thanks for clearing it up.

But it would be of interest, and it might lay down some ground rules. Are you saying that posts have to be justified? Is it a legal or editorial/moderating requirement?

I have had this post sat ready to go since I read Ponty's call for FF to "justify" his comments a few hours back. Didn't want to post it until perhaps FF had turned up for the evening, but now he has, it's nice to see I'm in tune with what FF is thinking. That's very honourable of you. But why has he got to justify his comments? What are the forum rules on this, have all posts got to be justified? Now of course, had you said FF may want to justify his comments, it might have come across somewhat diffferently, or are you really stating that he has to justify his comments?

Please tell me you did this on purpose LOL. As thick as it was from the beginning, hence the smiley/winky things and the text in grey which you obviously missed.

cringe :smt117:smt116:-\":smt100

Good spot. I knew we had Forest away, but those other games could mean that 8 interested clubs could be all over each other on that Sunday. I wouldn't mind betting that at different stages during the 90 minutes almost every team will be in the relegation spots. I think watching Sky Sports Centre that afternoon will be rather nerve wracking!!!!!!!

Did you miss the winks;) And maybe your semantics jibe would have found a better home when NickG first got on his high horse regarding not doing paraphrasing. Your swift intervention then could have stopped all this nonsense. Anyway, thanks for your input, and feel free to roam the board offering your advice.

Then maybe he should have used the term "I wasn't" or "I didn't" as opposed to "I don't" which is somewhat permanent and definite;) Nor do I, but NickG doesn't sound too happy;)

Nick, forgive me, but I don't want a battle, just find it slightly hypocritical that you're happy to wade in and wave your dck about a bit, but then get all prissy when someone has a shot across your bows. You clearly said you don't paraphrase, but then admit you had:rolleyes::smt048:rolleyes::smt048 In the grand scheme of things, it's fck all, but the fact that your claim you don't paraphrase was followed by an exclamation mark, a hth and the fact it was a sharp retort just makes your hypocrisy all the more funny. But of course, why does everything have to be a battle;)

So which is it Nick? Do you paraphrase or not? (I actually don't give a fck, but thought I would just highlight your hypocrisy and give you a clue as to why things may turn into a battle with you!) Things might appear to be a battle to you, but when you go in feet first and have a pop at others over nothing, then you probably need to expect some stick back. Maybe if you weren't so patronising then it might go slightly more smoothly.

I'm really surprised you're still struggling with this one Frank. I struggle to believe that you don't realise this was/is a fluid situation and how things ebbed and flowed over time. Pearson had to prepare for the relegation battle knowing full well that "if" (more like "when" actually) Lowe and Wilde got back in, then his job would be under threat. As I have mentioned above, it was well known that Wilde and Lowe weren't overly enamoured with him and that they had indicated they might replace him. During this period he kept his nose clean and got on with the job in hand despite this obvious distraction hanging over his head. Come the end of the season, which was a 'relative' success, many, including Pearson, hoped he had done enough to win round the doubters, Lowe and Wilde key amongst them. He therefore went into the meeting with Lowe upbeat, hoping that despite knowing there had been moves afoot to replace him, he had done enough to allow him to honour the rest of his contract. I understand the meeting itself was described as positive, and once again despite knowing of the threat to replace him he left upbeat believing he had allayed that threat with relative success on the pitch and a positive meeting with Lowe. I am led to believe that he left to go to Malta thinking he had every chance of coming back to the job. He was therefore surprised to learn he was out of a job when his agent rang him to tell him the story had broken on the net that Saints had appointed Poortvliet.

And changing your post around, I'm not sure why it is so difficlut to undserstand

You've just paraphrased what he said there, and there are a couple of lines where your recollection is different to mine. I'm sure he said he is no longer involved in the Academy and is now overseeing the reserves and the first team only. He also never used the word excellent with regards the fans support. HTH

The last time I checked, Duncan hadn't published a book on here;) He's got an opinion, be it good, bad, bllocks or indifferent. He's a fan and he's entitled to espouse it on here (as is everyone). When I read one of the Hagiology books (the ones you thought were boring in your last guise) I expect some balance, some facts and quality, but the last time I checked Granty wasn't undertaking a quality control test on the posts on here. If you haven't got the ability to discern for yourself what goes up on here, then you really shouldn't be on here in the first place.

Fair enough, with the exception of the bit in bold. Lowe had never even met Pearson to discuss what his views were with regards playing youngsters what he would want etc before he had decided to go with Poortvliet. He also ignored Pearson's many comments about the importance of youth teams and how they should blend in with the first team. And it also looks bad in hindsight as Pearson had made judiscious use of loan signings and playing a large number of youngsters at leicester. The decision was already made to replace Pearson and it was solely a footballing decision. No problem about that, that's Lowe's perogative. But he should have stopped bllshtting and had the balls to say it was. The very fact that it was a fcking disaster is another debate altogether!!!

Indeed, but with a caveat. Crouch simply does not have the ability to decide Wotte's future in the same way that Lowe could with Pearson. PS I presume Crouch doesn't rate Wotte, as his tirade was launched when Poortvliet was in situ (but saying I want a British manager somewhat rules Wotte out).

And if Crouch had come back and sacked Wotte and/or Poortvliet and said it was because of financial issues, then I would have called him a fcking bllshtter who should have the balls to put his name to his new appointment and not claim it was forced upon him and he had no choice due to financial issues.