um pahars

I did put a caveat on my "perhaps they didn't live up to my earlier expectations" and you could well be right in that a real quality Premiership centre midfielder is a fairly rare commodity and also given the economics of football hardly likely to be with us for long if they were that good!!!!

If they've still got the tickets and then got a refund then surely they'd be over the moon!!!!!

and credit cards!!!!!! We might be on to something here.

It certainly wasn't Marwell, but I can remember them having a decent spread of animals - Lions, tigers, various monkeys, Giraffes, zebras, Hippos, Penguins, Sea Lions, Bears, but don't remember elephants!!!! Not the mopsty salubrious of environments (and given today's standards it would be seen as a tad cruel).

I totally agree that those pesky Germans have quite a bit to answer for, but I also think we (probably mean the local authorities) didn't do ourselves any favours in the years following them. e.g. whenever I have a walk around the Old Town I still can't fathom out who agreed to have blocks of ugly flats to be built above the medieval vaults, who thought it would be a good idea to build shops and flats in front of the walls, why no restrictions were put on style of srchitecture permitted etc.

Have to agree on that one, just too similar???? I think the question seems to be, who should partner Chaplow?

Similar to my thoughts in that I too think our best pairing is Chaplow (making the forward runs) and Hammond (anchoring the play). Technically, I think Schneiderlin is superior to both of them (but does go missing, head can drop etc), but just think in this division we need a bit of rough.

Williams Ball Case Cockerill Horne (assuming that players like Armstrong wouldn't be classes as anchor men)

We could call it Saints or The Saint (or something catchy like that). Got any thoughts on how to improve the catering??

Remove the sentiment of being around for 10 years and the fact that Danny played almost double the amount of games as his brother and I think you have to go with Rodney as being the better player. Was priviledged to see both of them at their prime and think Rodney had a tiny bit more quality about him and seemed a better finisher. Danny however, made the bigger and better contribution to the Club.

Arsene's worried (not for us mind): http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/fa_cup/9403178.stm

Well, I'm sure some would say the dig at MLT was unwarranted and personal, particularly when he was only doing what he thought was the right thing in attempting to save the Club (yes, it was an absolutely noddy bid, but I won't be criticising someone for at least attempting to do something). Additionally, suggesting people are seeking to harm the Club is somewhat forthright (and I doubt that it is on the money). And of course people on the other end of the spectrum would just counter with claims that MLT and Lawrie's statements aren't personal attacks on Cortese or the Club, merely offering up an opinion on the Club they support. It's been going both ways for a little while and whilst I'm sure different people would apportion differing quantities of blame in varying directions, I don't think it is fair to siugest it has just been one way traffic.

Split on whether I would want to be in their position. Huddersfield no (3 pts, inferior goal difference and 2 games in hand is definitely overcomeable), but I think I might rather be in Bournemuff's position. I make our games in hand to be: Rochdale (a) draw would be a decent result unless their form drops away Walsall (a) good chance of winning there Charlton (a) an outside chance of a win, but a draw might not be a bad result Not going to be easy, but I suppose the argument has to be that if we're going up then we have to bloody well earn it.

And I certainly wasn't suggesting you were, and in the same way I'm not solely pointing the finger at him either. But like you I think that maybe he and the Club are best placed to try and bring the various factions together and try and get some resolution on this. Have to agree 100%.

NickG, I don't think it is just for your personal interest as I'm sure many of us appreciate this (I know I certainly do). I agree it means feck all come May (and I pray it doesn't become a what might have been thread!!!!!!!!), but in the meantime it does pose some questions and provides some information, so thanks.

Thanks for the kind words. Glad to be back and hopefully the end of the season will go well, although I think it will go right to the wire!!! I think it might be a bit harsh putting the emphasis on Cortese to start the process (after all two sides are involved here), and if what Doggface has said is true, then he might argue he attempted this last May. That said, he is probably best placed to bang some heads together. Alternatively, I have posed as to whether there is an intermediary out there who could bring the two groups together and sort this out over a beer (or a wine) or seven.

I have to say that disappointingly I think there have been words, actions and "briefings" coming from both sides and it isn't just one way traffic. Here's a few words from Cortese back in May(???) which could well be interpreted by some as a bit of an attack on certain individuals (whether warranted or not is up to you to decide, but the comments have definitely been made which would suggest the "banter" is two way). "This speculation could be interpreted as a deliberate attempt to unsettle both the Club and Alan.......various figures with past associations to the Club have been quick to voice their opinions, ........one of whom was associated with a so-called consortium which delayed for an important few weeks last summer our plans to stabilise the Club. ....I will not be influenced or driven by people who seek to harm the Club..." I would venture that this feud does exist and that sadly it is a two way thing.

I'm grasping at a positive from your post in that maybe there is a chance of a reconcilliation at some point in the future if Cortese was willing to extend an "olive branch" back then. I know some things have happened since and further words exchanged, but you never know, there may be a point when both are willing to sit down and talk to each other as IMHO this feud reflects poorly on all involved.

All valid and reasonable points and I think it's good that you won't be getting shouted down for offering them up. Cheers

Indeed, but it's a big leap from suggesting that because he knows MLT (or knew him) that it came from the horses mouth as insinuated by the moderator above.

So why have you got a problem with Mitchell (i.e. what does he bring to the table)?? After all, if success is the only yardstick to be judged upon, then he is undoubtedly currently a success.

If you're referring to Weston Saint, then I'm afraid he said nothing of the sort. If you're not referring to Weston Saint, then just what are you saying?? Methinks you're treading on very dangerous ground here with your insiuations and references (something I would have thought was unwise for a moderator).

Sorry, but if it's OK with you I thought I would contribute to a forum, where people often cross fertilise threads!!! My point was with regards the comment, "and all he brings to the table", as surely what he brings to the table (and how much of a tool he is) is totally irrelevant if success is the only thing that matters.