um pahars

Solent are saying two full debuts dues. Molyneux and Ronnie Size

Have us down for 4 or 5 points from next three games and have this one as a draw, but can see us sneaking it today. Donny off so can leapfrog them, Norwich away to Sheff Utd so could catch them up, Watford already lost so can close gap. The only bugger is Charlton at home to Forest. What's the best result here?? I think draw, then Charlton win, then Forest win.

No they have been sent to Aalborg by mistake.

hth

I think there's many things to feel ashamed of regards Jan;) but have to say his command of the English languae isn't one of them!!!! Of course he gets the odd word wrong (make a goal rather get a goal, and the like) but overall I think his English isn't that bad. Sometimes I struggle to work out exactly what he means, but I don't think you should be ashamed because of it!

All IMHO of course and pieced together from various snippets I have read and heard.

A taxi driver mate of mine picked Poortvliet up from Heathrow this morning 09:00, Terminal 3 , Flight EA003, Emirates from Dubai!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I thought he was winding me up, cos couldn't believe he would be out of the country the night before a big game.

Because there's no way we would have paid all of that upfront (with some even being linked on contingent events, appearances etc). IMHO Schneiderlin was bought more as an asset to be traded in a year or so as opposed to making a contribution to the long term success of the team (altough of course any dosh received would help the team as well as his contributions whilst he is here). Some may be able to see the logic in such an enterprise (if this is indeed the case), whilst others may think the idea of buying players the manager hasn't seen (and may not want) as a future investment as being a dangerous road to go down. Personally, I'm not overly comfortable with other people at the Club speculating on players (however honourable the intent is). And although we haven't paid all the money for Schneiderlin, when you combine this with the other loans & frees (and associated costs), it demonstrates that we did have some money (albeit relatively small) that we could trade with and that many think we haven't used those scarce resources very efficiently.

Because that's what your football team is all about. One game/month/season things can be brilliant and you're shouting from the rooftops and dancing in the street (or kitchen), the next minute you're down in the depths of despondency. You win games you're not supposed to win and you lose games you never should have. Football is an emotional game, a game where everyone's personal opinion is right (except yours when it comes to thinking DMG will score if he gets the service!!!). Winning spreads confidence, success breeds success, whereas losing fills people with despondency and you get to thinking where the next win will come from. But supporters are the eternal optimists despite their sometimes negative/realistic ourbursts which are always heartfelt. We always believe that despite being in the shi77yt at any particular point in time, there is always a that chance we could win the next game, turn this all around next month, start afresh next season, get a new manager in and go storming up the league. Being despondent, ****sed off, negative, realistic is as much a part of being a football supporter as being overyoyed, surprised, ecstatic and optimistic. Being exposed to all those emoitions and sharing them with others is what being a football supporter is all about and sometimes you have to experience the worst just to be able to appreciate the best. It all just depends where today sits in the lifetime existence of your Club.

I'm not really sure I agree with that (because that's nto how I personally see it anyway). I think most fans accept where we are, of course they would like to see us somehwere else, and they accept that within reason we cannot spend what we haven't got. So what I think most fans are ****ed off with is the appointment, tactics and leadership of a poor manager, some very poor purchases and loans, the lack of empathy and communication from the Club and the underperformance of the talent we have at our disposal. Whilst lack of finance sets the context we have to work in, all of the above could be changed without any real influx of cash. In summary, I don't think thee problem is with what little we have got, it's how poorly we have done we with it. I agree. I think the idea of locally owned, supported clubs is something we would all like the idea of, but the problem comes when you look at the wider picture and see that it would be a fairly futile exercise for many clubs given the market they operate in. For some clubs it has worked out of necessity, others through choice, but for it to have spread it would require is a wholsale change in attitude throughout the game.

Talk about defending the in defensible:rolleyes: We weren't the first to play at their new stadium (it had been opened a year before we got near it). I bet they've been handing out copies of that train to every team who has played there siince it opened. I think the whole thing is rather petty, McMenemy is milking it for reasons in addition to his ego being affronted, but your post is just so out of touch it's unbelievable. As for Cork, we should have done whatever we could to have kept him, but he is now history. The only thing worth mentioning about last night is that a potential relegation candidate failed to pull away from us.

I have to agree that it is probably not the forum it once was, but I think it still does carry a certain degree of gravitas. I have certainly heard that some of those in and outside of SMS have referred to it recently (scary really, in a way)!!!! As for PR plants, I think that accusation will sadly always be with us now, following the charade a couple of years back. Looking back you have to admire those who did some digging to find out that Lowe was actually paying people to post on here!!!!!! Thanks to the PR Office's poor attempts at subtefuge, there will always be shouts of PR plant. Once again I have to agree, but think we also have to accept that this type of vitriol isn't just restricted to some in the anti Lowe camp. There have also been numerous vitriolic attacks on Wilde, Crouch, McMenemy et al. Additionally some of the more sycophantic pro Lowe posts, (which if they don't come from PR plants!!), often do the exact opposite of what their authors intended (unless of course there is some reverse psychology in play, as I'm sure Scooby & some others were actually anti Lowe!!).

4 or 5 points for me. Not enough to get us out of the mire, but enough not to see us left behind. These promises by Jan never really mean anything.

I would have thought a man of your wordly ability would have done better than to repeat Lowe's mantra. There were indeed some noddy decisions taken by the old Executive team (particuarly last summer), but you have to remember that revenue has fallen from circa 50m to circa 14m. That sort of fccuks with your cash. As for your analysis of the current position, then we shouldn't have to wait long as the interims are soon out, and unlike you my gut feel is that we are still running at a loss and the overdraft has increased since the summer.

And with that one line you still show that you don't get these finance things. It didn't free up 8million cash, the #17million loan was the initial construction loan from MeesPierson, which was replaced and then finally consolidated by #25million of loan notes as the costs of the project increased through time. In fact, Lowe should have been hung out to dry, along with Risdale and others, if he entered into long term loan/deals to generate cash to use in the short term. Some of your analysis on the overall position is quite good, but steer clear of saying things like the above which are patently untrue (and has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions, which does make you wonder why you persist in trotting out such claptrap).

Not true. In Lowe's last season the wage bill was 13.6m (12.5 pro rata) and stood at 53% of turnover. In first season after Lowe wages dropped to 10.5m and stood at 45% of turnover. Last season it went back up to 12.1m and stood at 81% of turnover.

Fcuukc me!!!!!!! I was wetting myself so much over the Pearson bit that I didn't realise it got even worse:rolleyes::smt044:smt044 Delusional, out of touch, in a fantasy of his own, does indeed sound like Lowe.

And here's what David Jones thought of the numbers: Would loved to have been a fly on the wall in the office after the AGM with Rupe's leading on the stupidness of the 81% figure and Jones responding that it was a mere blip!!!!!!! The only thing in that report that surprised me was the figure down for Rasiak. When Lowe signed Rasiak he intimated that he was on alot more than that, so just wondering if the Rasiak figure has been massaged down (is it missing loyalty binuses etc). So does that indicate that it was a Lowe leaked story???? Certainly when I read the piece, the fact there was the big caveat stating, "this all happened when Lowe was not at the Club" made me think that it probably was. A sort of get my excuses in and divert attention at the same time. If t was him, was he thinking of getting this out to try and say: a) "I'm having to do all this on the cheap because of what I inherited" and/or b) "Administration is inevitable after all these payments" and/or c) "If I put this out it might deflect the spotlight away from the things that aren't going too well at the moment" Not sure what Crouch's camp could achieve by these stories coming out (anyone want to offer up why they might have been behind this?). Also not sure that the old Executive team would have leaked this as parts of it doesn't paint them in a good light (i.e. Euell). Anyway, I'm sure Euell wil now go that extra mile for us having been outed and it's just another day at The Cirque Des Saints.

:rolleyes::rolleyes: And just when I thought it couldn't get any funnier around here.

Reading the publishers details of In That Number is considerably more interesting than reading your poorly constructed diatribes. In fact I'd rather read, re read and then re read again the ISBN than listen to you. Compared to Haliology and their contributions to this Club, you're a complete irrelevence. But do keep posting as you always provide us with fun material to rib (Mods, I'm still up for paying his 5 quid).

If Rupert is going to post on here, then you would like to think he would disguise himself better;). As likely to score, you're having a giraffe!!!!!!!!!!!! (Sorry, just noticed Benjiii has already taken Rupe's to task)

My four would be: Channon Keegan Shilton Williams

So at last you fully accept that this was a footballing decision. At least we've put the myth to bed that we had to appoint Poortvliet due to financial reasons, and as you now concede there were a myriad of managers out there who we could have brought in that we could have afforded and would have worked within those constraints (Pearson included). Whoever came in certainly had to work in some rather tight constraints, but there was absolutely no reason why Pearson, for instance, would not have been prepared or able to work within those tight constraints. Of course what will always be up for debate is whether he (or someone else) would have performed better, but quite frankly from what I have seen, and what we are starting to hear, I very much doubt anyone could have been a worse appointment.