um pahars

We own a part and we lease a part.

Did you see him play today????

False economy me up.

I don't think he would have sacked him because: a) I honestly don't think we would be in this position under Pearson, b) I don't think he would have brought in some of the players Jan has (Gasmi WTF??) c) I don't think we would have seen such dire performances (particularly at home) d) I don't think we would have played such one dimensional and predictable football.

McGoldrick is also not a kid. Forest had a load of youngsters, as have many other teams. We also took a conscious decision to get in youngsters on loan, when we could have got some experience in. Our squad is actually not that bad, certainly not promotion chasers, but then again not one that should roll over and get spanked at home by Forest. Make no mistake, this should have been something like 4-1 to them. A new manager could play a different formation, could motivate the players better, could wheel and deal in January. The notion that there is no alternative to Jan is fccuking head in the sand thinking.

In which case, then Lowe has to go as well.

The bit about resources is boll ox. If you have a look at our squad, then you will find some decent players. Certainly comparable to many in this division. Granted we haven't got a decent striker on our books (but then again some of that is down to Jan), but we do have at least an average squad. Apart from Earnshaw, I couldn't tell you one Forest player, but they pi545ed all over us today. We could have lost 5-1 it was that bad. I think Jan is out of his depth big time.

When anyone says we play attacking and exciting football, I will refer them to this game. When anyone mentions Total Football, I will refer them to this game. When anyone says we are making progress, I will refer them to this game. Make no mistake, this was no fluke result, this was no one off poor performance or a bolt out of the blue, this was plainly total and utter rubbish. Another one dimensional set up which was not delivering. Some of these players aren't that bad, but the way we set up and the way we were playing is just appalling!!!!! Davis - 6 - Three very good saves that kept the score down. James - 3 - Offered nothing. Perry - 5 - Tried his best, but was surrounded by players not performing. Pearce - 2 - Looked nervous and always suspect. Skacel - 5 - Tried his best, but eventually gave up Euell - 5 - He is not a right winger, HE IS NOT A RIGHT WINGER Surman - 4 - Overrun by Forest's midfield Cork - 4 - Overrun by Forest' midfield Holmes - 5 - Tried his best, btu the very fact we were one dimensional and trying to play everything through him meant he was oon snuffed out. Lallana - 5 - So skilful and silky, but Forest had him sussed and kept him from hurting them. McGoldrick - 0 (zero) - A waste of a shirt. Subs : Wright Phillips - 5 - Tried his best, but back to normal Gasmi - -5 (minus 5) - made Ali Dia look good. Didn't have a clue, did not look as though he knew where he was playing or what he was doing.

I think wages would be a big problem for him, but that's not to say there aren't other experienced players out there who we could pick up on a loan (or a free) who we could afford.

You've obviously never heard of proxy votes then (as mentioned in your own little cut and paste). Thanks for another laugh and chuckle at your expense over the last few days watching you thrash around, as once again you're taking about stuff you're really not that sure about. At least caveat things if you're not exactly sure, or say you're open to being persuaded, but please stop showng yourself up (methinks you're confusing (a) buy outs & then companies taking private with (b) shareholders voting to to delist!!!) How about the following notices outlining recent delistings from AIM: The De-Listing In accordance with Rule 41 of the AIM Rules, the Company has today notified the London Stock Exchange of the De-Listing, which is conditional upon the consent of not less than 75 per cent. of votes cast by Shareholders in a general meeting. The Resolution to cancel admission to trading on AIM requires the approval of 75 per cent. of those present and entitled to vote at the meeting or voting by proxy. If approved, it is anticipated that trading in the Ordinary Shares on AIM will cease at close of business on 22 May 2008, with cancellation on AIM taking effect at 8.00 a.m. on 23 May 2008. Delisting from AIM In accordance with AIM Rules, it is a requirement that any delisting from AIM must be approved by not less than 75 per cent. of Shareholders voting in General Meeting. Accordingly, the notice of General Meeting set out on page 7 of this document contains a Special Resolution to approve the application to the London Stock Exchange for cancellation of admission of the Company’s shares on AIM. If the Resolution is approved, it is expected that cancellation of dealings will take effect from 7.00 a.m. on 22 December 2008. HTH

Not me!!!!! I pointed out a while back that my little moles inside SMS were saying how big a part Hockaday plays, and how he has Lowe's ear big time. And just as Lowe demanded a "transfer fee" for Webster in the summer, I reckon that if it is Hockaday they want, then Lowe would be hanging on for a good price. Not just because he always does, but maybe because this time he wants to price Hockaday out of the job as he thinks he is such an integral part (and maybe even our next manager;)). A pi5s5ed off Hockaday may not be a good thing, but maybe the sweetener has been an "I'll see you alright next season" LOL.

Methinks you should try and read what is said, before you go and make yourself look even more of a fool than you did last night. You're now even arguing against yourself and inventing something called a half season rule LMFAO.:rolleyes:

And that is one of my main problems with Jan, in that he continues with a system even when we do not have the players to play it. Without natural wingers, he put square pegs in round holes in an attempt to persevere with the only system he would appear to know.

It's nice to know I'm in good company, as all three of you mirror how I am currently feel. It's got nothing to do with being rabidly anti Lowe, hating him because of his accent, background or fondness for hockey, nor is it that we want him to fail just so that we can be proved right (on what is after all a noddy, annymous internet forum), it's all to do with being objective and rational and forming your own opinion. Not everything Lowe has ever done as been bad, and on many times I have praised him, but as Saint1977 says, every leader has a sell by date. I truly hope that either this experiment works, or that is ended before too much damage is done. Listening to Kenny Dalglish speak about the Ince sacking, he said that although some might say Ince has been kicked out too early, he feels that half a season is long enough to review a managers progress, and that you have to be fair to the club as well as they will need time to turn themselves around.

LOL I was ****ing myself after reading "Mad Tom's" post and was going to reply, so thanks for saving me the effort. I just loved the hypocritical rants throughout the post

He did, it was at the start of the Cup Final season for a few months. He just needed a fresh start somewhere and had gone stale down here. I spoke to him on and off back then, and by his own admission he wasn't doing the business. There were a few off the field issues that he had to sort out (his neighbours were quite happy that he left!!!!) and at the time a break was the best for both result for both him and the Club. Considering we got some decent money first time around and some great performances from him during his two stints, I never really had a problem with him moving on, although it his sometimes hard to believe he made less than a 100 starts for us.

With all the time you have sat on your ar55e, the least you could have done would be to read what is posted, before you go and embarass yourself with such a drab reply.:rolleyes: I think you'll find that I said every manager was a gamble to some degree. :confused: WGS coming here following relegation, Lawrie coming from the lower divisions etc etc etc, all had a degree of a gamble about them, particularly with nothing in football being guaranteed. However, if you think that our experiment of playing "Total Football" under a "Revolutionary Coaching Set Up", where the "Skill and Steel" is being trusted to a man with close to zero experience of this league and whose career in his own country is not as glowing as some would have us believe, is not a gamble with longer odds than most, then you are indeed a fool.:roll: Even many of those who support Lowe concede that this is a mighty gamble given his background, record & experience, and the situation we find ourselves in. It might of course be a masterstroke, at which point I will doff my cap to Lowe and Jan, but it will still have been a gamble which I would say was past the median and towards the longish end of the scale.

No it's not fair, and you've come across as right pr11ck on here tonight. HTH. Goodnight.

No, because with regards Beattie you're so wide of the mark it's embarassing (and that's before we even start to drive a coach and horses through the other rubbish you've spouted on here). I presume you forgot his role in the Great Escape season (under Jones) and how he flicked on for Pahars to score the first against Everton, before delivering a cracking cross for Pahars second up the Milton. As others have pointed out, you respond to arguments people have never put forward, and now you've just retrenched to that pathetic, sad and tired line that all those who have doubts about the current set up, do so because they hate Lowe, think he's evil, a toff, a snob etc etc etc and Jan is a clown, conveniently overlooking the many well reasoned and argued posts that clearly don't involve such ridiculous statements. I actually think you're even too rabid for a job on the OS!!!!!

Give it a rest, any credibility you may have had has long disappeared.

And we have improved going from the 8 game (1 3 4) to the 6 game (1 3 2) current form table, so was actually pointing out that our current form has got better!!!!!!!!

I had a giggle about that as well!!! A case of selective reading methinks:rolleyes:

How about answering my question first?:rolleyes: With all due repsect, you've come across pretty poorly tonight, best thing for you to do would be to apply for a job on the OS;)

I was actually suggesting that if you compare our 8 game current form to our 6 game current form, then we have actually moved up a few places!!!!!! C'est la vie.

He was certainly more prolificunder Burley, than he was under Redknapp!!!!! I may well be wrong, because I hated everything about that first season down, but I just never thought he was 100% fit.