um pahars

Given the debacle that was our first season down - Woodward, Clifford, Redknapp, staged press conferences, player revolts etc etc etc, and given what has happened in his first season back, I struggle to believe that Lowe would have got us back to the Premiership. Lowe's return this season and the total cck up that it has been so far, only confirms that the decision to remove him the first time around was the correct one. That doesn't condone everything that happened post his removal, but the failings of others are a very poor reason for him staying on (or indeed returning). The very fact that we have a failed Lowe together with a failed Wilde is enough to make all sides weep.

You mean accepting. HTH

You'd be lucky to get more than three who think lowe and/or others are deliberately making these mistakes. It's just so illogical even if for this nerdy forum. You need to go and get some fresh air fella.

Absolutely. And being one of many who received his little PM, then I have to say that what appears on here is a toned down version of some of his ******. Marland must have a semblence of common sense, decency, logic and probably a touch of class about him, something The Bear / Flashman / Sundance / Nineteen could only dream of. Someone who goes out of their way to send unsolicited PM's and who launches into such tirades on here is either on a wind up or seriously unbalanced. Maybe slightly out of left field, but I find the nature, tone and syntax of his posts is very similiar to a loon/troll who used to post on here a while back, but who hasn't been around much - Corp Ho.

LOL. Can just imagine Lowe getting The Telegraph two days late and spitting his coffee out all over the paper, as he reads the line up.

You seem to have misinterpreted the content and nature of my post.:rolleyes: My post was in no way a dig at the Club (or anyone associated with it), I was merely commenting that one of our relegation rivals had appeared to have bolstered their defence (or not as the case may be) which may have a negative consequence on us. I would have made a similar comment had Watford managed to sign Curtis Davies from Villa on loan.

I wouldn't call it a subtle change at all, as everything we have seen (e.g. sacking the manager) and heard (e.g. the change in formations mentioned by Wotte) would indicate something akin to a U turn (but that's not something I think we'll see on the OS, who will instead dress it up as a slight change of priority!!!). I just hope that with only 16 games left, we haven't left it too late. There's certainly enough games left and enough points to play for, but we would appear to be playing catch up. Additionally, I worry that Wotte and the team will take some time to get used to playing his preferred methods. Fingers crossed we can pull it off.

Is Michael Wilde partly responsible for the position we currently find ourselves in? A definite yes, but it has to be put in context and remembered in it's entirety, but he must accept his share of the blame along with a number of others. Was he a complete failure? No, as anyone who can remember getting to the play offs will testify to. Has he made poor error of judgement in backing Lowe to bring in Poortvliet & the "Revolutionary Coaching Set Up"? I would say, Yes. Were those he appointed failures? Once again a mixed bag. In the first season we reached the play offs, costs were reduced and net debt was at it's lowest for years. The following year as promises of investment never materialised, shareholders fought amongst themselves and SISU's offer sought to make them saviours, they lost their way (seriously). Hoos has gone on to Leicester, where you have to assume he's doing a good job, but no idea where Hone has ended up. But if his target was to get us promoted within a couple of years, then he has to be deemed as a failure, but as is the case with Lowe and others, it's not simply an open and shut case. However, those who believed he could bring about change at this Club (myself included) were probably let down, call it wrong in their judgement if you want. As to how responsible some fans (myself included) are in him being here, well we must shoulder our share of the blame, but once again it has to be put in context and considered as to how much of a part it played (but it did play some part). But I don't feel overly comfortable with hanging supporters out to dry with regards the decisions of others they believed could bring something positive to the Club. Were those who backed Lowe when he started to lose the plot post WGS to blame for him being here and making a number of disastrous decisions? Of course not. The overwhelming majority acted in good faith believing he was the right man and thet cannot be blamed for our demise. Are those fans who supported (or who were at least indifferent to) Lowe coming back this time to blame for his appointment of Poortvliet and the failings to date? Of course not, and it would be foolish and churlish to suggest they should bear the responsibility of someone elses actions.

As I said when Poortvliet got dumped out on his ar5e, I really don't think "Told You SO" posts do anything but cause division and rancour. Continue if you must, but in the grand scheme of things you should expect a lot of incoming if your best "told you so" is that we didn't lose a few players.

I live close to the ground and have to say there was a fresh dusting last night. Not loads but enough to make roads dodgy again. Unless there is a bit of a thaw (and I cant see the OB and others going on a hunch) I reckon this will be off due to traffic and approach conditions.

Am I allowed to post on this thread Johnny, as I don't hate Lowe???? Could you clear that up for me, thanks.

I can't see this game going ahead.

I think very few are up for hanging themselves over this one. Some have rightly pointed out that it probably doesn't fit in with Wotte's comments that he will only bring in better than we already have, some have quite legitimately questioned this guys calibre based on his previous English experience and some have just appeared fairly nonchalent and not accepting of whatever spin the OS comes up with. I very much doubt he's even getting the £1k a week you guess at, and reckon those inside the Club view it as you do, in that it's just a cheap punt on someone who looked alright in a friendly. People have looked at his stats to date and taken in his adventure with Southend and Stevenage and come to a logical conclusion that this guy probably isn't all that. They might be wrong, they might be right, but I struggle to find anything in his past to get all happy clappy about (apart from his cool name and his height). I'm sure we'd love him to come good, I'm sure we'd all love him to be the next Killer, but I think that given all the information we have on him to date, then that he is something of a long shot.

You must have misread what I posted, as I meant you need to review your posts, because you do come across slightly obsessed and a tad of a mentalist. BTW you're obviously fussed, because you're now throwing a hissy fit.:smt022:smt022 Tris, come along to the next march and I'll give you a cuddle (and a guide ot internet posting as well as showing you my ZANU and ZAPU books).

With all due respect I think that if you're comparing a player who is frozen out of Liverpool (2nd in the league) and just sold for £12m, with a player who was frozen out of Stevenage Borough (probably 102nd) and signed on a loan, then I have to question the validity of the comparison.

Honestly, I didn't mean to offend you and maybe I should have been more subtle, but your posts do come across as slightly unbalanced at times. Maybe it would be worth reviewing them afresh in the morning and having a rethink. I'm sure there are many sticks to beat Lowe with, but sometimes your persistence with irrelevant stuff or stuff which is clealry ludicrous undermines any other good posts you (and others) may make. Just as Scooby was actually a real detriment to the pro Lowe cause, then sadly sometimes you are his complete nemesis.

As I posted above, Pearson has shown by his deeds that he is not averse to playing youngsters, nor wheeling and dealing on a small budget. It was pretty obvious that he would be up for such a strategy, particularly when you look back to see he said the following not long after taking over: On youth: "A lot of my background is working with youngsters. I worked with the England youth teams for three years and I see the Academy as a massive part of the club. On working with limited funds "It will be a combination. The reality is there will be comings and goings, there is no doubt about that. Economics will play a part and there will be some natural wastage as players come to the end of their contracts. Then it will be a case of finding players who fit the bill. We need a side capable of getting success but which fits in with the financial situation. But we are not going to be splashing fortunes on players. Even in the short time I have been here, I have been looking to see if we can get players on loan. Short-term is the immediate priority but I am looking long-term too." On youth again, but how the relegation fight must be a priority It cannot be my priority at the moment but it will get my total support in terms of fitting in with the philosophy of the club. I have worked at clubs where the academy and first-team are separate entities and not integrated at all and those clubs are the poorer for it. If you put the right effort into recruiting and developing the right players then it can save the club a lot of money on transfer fees." Those that claim Pearson was only interested in big name players earning big name wages couldn't be more wrong, particularly when you look at his words and deeds in this area.

Trust me, your fantasies are way more of a mentalist nature. I'm all for having a pop where it's justified, but some of the nonsense you come out with is on a par with Scooby and Sundance/whatever his new name is. No offence intended, just that you come across slightly weird.

You may want to have a rethink about what Pearson has at his disposal and it is also worth noting that just because a team gets relegated, it doesn't automatically mean they will bounce back (as we found out to our cost!!). Here was his team from recently when people were moaning that he would only play older players who would have cost a fortune. When you consider the number of loanees, frees and youngsters then maybe you might want to reconsider your view that he is using the same players as last season. Here's his side today: 4 loanees 11 of the squad are 23 or under (7 are 20 or under) Martin - 23 (on loan) Gilbert - 21 (on loan) Morrison - 20 (new in) Hobbs - 20 (on loan) Berner - 31 (new in) Oakley - 31 Andy King - 20 Cleverley - 19 (on loan) Dyer - 26 (new in) Fryatt - 22 Howard - 32 Subs: Pentney - No age or data (but young) Chambers - 18 Gradel - 21 Mattock - 18 Dickov - 134

I think your imagination is going into overdrive. If you wanted to argue that this is potentialy a distraction and a drain on time and effort, then you might have a semblence of a case, but the idea that we'll become a feeder club to a Hungarian club just comes across a tad mentalist. As an aside, I wonder what happened to our tie up with FC Qingdao in China. I'm sure it was announced in our relegation season and was supposed to last for 6 years or so!!!!! Now that was a waste of time, effort and probably money;)

The bed wetters are having a field day:rolleyes::rolleyes: Fans express their opinion on a player who couldn't break into Southend's team when they were a division below and who only featured for Stevenage in the Conference twice and the drama queens are out in force.:smt022:smt022 Overall, it's been a fairly positive transfer window, but let's just say this one isn't as exciting as Saga coming back!!!!

In which case, I also imagine it also dispels the myth that we couldn't afford Pearson and had absolutely no choice but to go for Poortvliet and his/Lowe's appaling strategy.

In which case you posting to an even smaller number!!!!! Those that want Lowe to fail (and therefore the Club to fail as well) are a very small minority, so if you're accepting that, then by suggesting it won't be even all of those you're whittling it down to one or two.

Well maybe you should have written: I doubt that will please the few extremists that want Lowe to fail as opposed to: I doubt that will please many fans that want Lowe to fail