Fowllyd

Don't tell lies. I know full well that you haven't got any friends.

Word.

No. Unless it's a possessive, or an abbreviation of "like is", neither of which would make sense. It's a plural, so requires no apostrophe. Sorry.

Hypo's modesty is most becoming. He also missed out NatsieDooDaa - I reckon she'll be upset about that.

Really? My counsellor told me that there's nothing in the world sadder than someone who quotes their counsellor on a football forum.

But there isn't any explanation there. It looks like a circular argument, along the lines of "I think that this will happen because it's what I think will happen". Or at least that's how it reads to me. If Adkins or anyone else on the coaching staff had been quoted as saying that they expect some easy games this season, or if Adkins had been guilty of underestimating opponents last season, then you'd have a point. But they haven't, at least not to my knowledge. I reckon I'll leave it there - I can't help feeling that we've got ourselves at cross purposes here. You think you've answered my question, I can't see that you have. That's just the way it goes sometimes...

The bit you've highlighted says that you think the coaching staff will underestimate other sides. But it doesn't say why you consider this to be the case, which is the question I was asking. Or do you think that it does?

I'm not asking you to repeat anything, just to answer a question that you haven't - to wit, why do you think that our coaching staff will underestimate our opponents this coming season? You haven't answered that question; or, if you have done so, please point me in the direction of the post in which you did and I'll be happy to admit my error and aplogise unreservedly. And no, I don't suffer from Asperger's, nor do I want a forensic account of what you post. I simply wanted an answer to a simple question - is that really so hard to understand? Oh, and if you get infracted for what you've just posted then it will be clear evidence that this place really has gone mad! I took no offence, anyway.

1. Adkins also took Scunny up again and kept them there. You seem to be forgetting that. It doesn't mean that he's a top Championship manager, but it does mean that he has experience of keeping a side in the Championship - and a side with nowhere near our level of resources. 2. Who exactly are this 'all and sundry'? What reason do you have for thinking that they are underestimating our opposition in this league? 3. Why? Have they done so before? 4. Adkins will come up against other managers with more experience. So did Paul Lambert last season. So will Gus Poyet this season. We'll see how Adkins does, but it's hard not to get the impression that you're expecting him to flunk the test. 5. In case you missed his point altogether, Minsk was responding to your post by asking for a second time questions which you fail to answer. There is a difference between responding to a post and asnwering any questions it contains. In fact, you still haven't explained WHY you think that Adkins, the coaching staff or the players will underestimate our opponents this season. Would you care to do so now? You continually avoid questions, while still claiming to have responded to them, and then moan when you will get stick for it. You can't just cherry-pick the things you want to answer and ignore the rest - not if you want to be taken seriously. This is not personal abuse, or picking on you; it's frustration at your unwillingness to engage in anything remotely resembling reasoned discussion.

If it has no bearing on Adkins or the players, then what does it matter? If it's merely about what people on here think, what does that matter? What point exactly are you trying to make here? What is said on here is of no importance whatsoever, even if it's people saying that Adkins is a proven success in the Championship as if it's fact - and I've yet to see anyone suggest any such thing anyway. Have you? Guly and de Ridder have played at a level roughly equivalent to the Championship. This doesn't mean that they'll shine here, but having seen Guly play a fair number of times I reckon he'll do well at this level. Any player can be a great success at one club and a flop at another, so I wouldn't state as fact that de Ridder will be a storming success this season. But then neither did I claim that; I merely said that, as he's been very successful at a similar level, there's a very good chance that he will do well with us. And yes, when I said I considered Lambert and Oxo as a good bet to step up that was my opinion, not a statement of fact. That's what the phrase 'look like a good bet' suggests, is it not? Yes, you did indeed answer my questions - but only after I'd asked them a second time, with a hefty nudge. Prior to that, you picked the things you could either agree with or dismiss easily, and ignored several posts (my first one included) which contained rather more taxing questions. Hence my comments. My criticism of your posting is based on that tendency (as I said, it's not the first time I've seen you do this) and on the content of what you post; it's not a personal attack on you. Did I resort to name-calling or abuse? I did not. You can post what you like, and start whatever threads you like - it's entirely up to you (though I wouldn't recommend a Hypo-style mass thread-starting frenzy! ). I can wholeheartedly agree with your last comment!

Do you honestly think that the views of the fans - particularly the few hundred who post regularly on here - have the remotest effect on the attitude of Adkins or the team? Hell, even if you talk regularly to a fair number of fans outside of this forum, it's hardly the most representative sample you could possibly come up with. And, as I've already said, what the fans think doesn't matter. If every single fan thinks it'll be an easy season, will this affect our performance? Of course it won't. What Nigel Adkins thinks matters, and the attitude he instils into the players matters - and I've seen nothing whatever there to suggest complacency or underestimation of our opponents. Have you? I have no idea how many nPC clubs would swap their manager for Adkins, nor do I care. It simply isn't relevant. How many Championship clubs would have longed for Paul Lambert as their manager this time last year? We have a squad which excelled in League One (and yes, it did excel - let's not forget that our performance under Adkins exceeded that of any other League One team over the same period) and which contains numerous players with Championship experience, plus others who have played elsewhere at a similar level (Guly, de Ridder) or who look like a good bet to take that step up (Lambert, Chamberlain). Blind faith? Divine right? Where do you see those then? Assuming you mean on here, I've seen various posters concerned that we need to strengthen in various positions (and, for the most part, pleased that we've done so in two of those positions); many reckon that we're fine for a mid-table finish at worst. Only one or two on here think we're in for a relegation struggle (Dalek springs to mind), but maybe that's because the view of the majority is actually realistic. How about you - do you think we'll be in a relegation struggle come the end of the season? It seems to me that you weren't happy about Adkins' appointment in the first place, and have done your utmost since then to reinforce and justify this prejudgement in your own mind. You certainly give the impression of one who will not be satisfied no matter how well we do, as long as Adkins is still manager - and that you'll always find reasons to belittle anything he achieves with us. Any praise for Adkins you regard as fawning over him, any positive comments about him you see as indicating that their maker thinks that Adkins can do no wrong; neither of these is the case, at least not so far as I can see. Maybe this is a false impression of you, and you're as open-minded as you constantly claim to be, but your comments suggest otherwise. You do yourself no favours at all by posting stuff or starting threads, then simply refusing to answer the more challenging points or questions that others raise, preferring instead to take on the easy ones - complaining of abuse when people are less then polite in their response, for example. It's not that others are intolerant of your views, it's your unwillingness to defend them in the face of even the mildest questioning which gets on people's nerves. This is a regular trait with you. You say there's no proper debate on this forum, but I've yet to see you make any genuine attempt at it yourself.

This is all too true. Various posters, including me, have asked questions and/or made valid, non-abusive points on this thread. SaintLard has chosen to take on the pattacake stuff (complaining of abuse, agreeing with posts which support his view) but hasn't attempted to answer anything else. Furthermore, he's done exactly the same thing on numerous other threads. So, to give him a second shot at them, here are the same questions I asked earlier: What makes you think that we're likely to be complacent, or to underestimate our opponents? What would lower the level of trepidation that you currently feel? Any chance of a response this time?

What makes you think that we're likely to be complacent, or to underestimate our opponents? I've seen no indication of either from Adkins or the players - and that's where it matters, after all. We have a very good squad, to which we have made two additions so far. I think it likely that we'll see another one or maybe two before the window closes; after that, we may get the odd loan in, depending on how we've done in the permanent market. So I'd expect us to be comfortably in mid table at the very least, quite possibly better than that. As a matter of interest, what would lessen the level of trepidation which you feel?

I'd say that's very unfair on Dylan. He has always adapted and changed his older songs for live shows, which is an indication of his own intellectual restlessness rather than any contempt for fans. I saw him when I was living in Newcastle a few years back, and on some of the older songs he played that night you only realised what the song was when you heard the words (Masters Of War springs to mind). Songs from the then current LP, Modern Times, were played pretty much as per the LP itself. If he'd walked on with an acoustic guitar and harmonica and played a load of his old stuff in its original style I'd have been massively disappointed. I'd far rather pay money to see someone who constantly refreshes and reinvents their music than an artist who simply reels off note-perfect renditions of their original recordings, with maybe a longer solo here and there (the Rolling Stones being a good example). Dylan's not content to play a "greatest hits" type of show, and is all the better for that. Purely my own opinion, of course. As to Lou Reed, he's long had a reputation as a deeply unpleasant individual. I remember seeing an interview with him a few years ago and thinking what an arsehole he was.

So he's off to Plymouth then. That way he'll also have a manager who can rival him in the ugly stakes. Remember - you heard it here first.

Is she still there? Surely term has ended by now.

You are truly fearless, Ron. I think I can speak for the whole forum when I say how deeply you are admired and respected. Good luck old chap, good luck.

Hmm - I wonder what Jake's father does for a living...

I agree with every word. Superb performance in this Test though, and a great indication of the character and guts right through this team. After being 124-8 in the first innings, such a massive win is an astonishing achievement. How often have we seen England teams crumble from such a position? More than I care to remember. As you say though, the acid test will be going to South Africa and India and winning in both places. As things are, I'd back this England side to do just that.

I think you've got the press in general pretty much nailed there - they always tip the big name managers to succeed. Another point is that the media as a whole are so obsessed with the Premier League that the other three leagues get glossed over. So, if you're in the Championship and you have a well-known manager you'll get lots of tips for success. As other predictions quoted on here show, there's been precious little research done into the likely qualities of most teams. The Sunday Telegraph bit about our 'fragility of defence' shows that as clearly as you could wish.

Your post was about last season, and that's what I replied to; I didn't mention next season. Of course the statistics look very good - for they are very good. Every other team in our league last season conceded more goals that we did - in what way can this statistic be used to prove anything other than that? What other story is there to be told here which isn't told by the statistics? And how can shipping fewer goals than all other teams in our division (and fewer than all other Football League teams except QPR) be not good enough for a promotion-chasing team? I'm afraid I really can't follow your reasoning here.

Last season we conceded the fewest goals of all League One teams - 38 over 46 matches. That's not even a goal a game. If the whole stadium became nervous every time the opposition attacked or had a set piece, they really had no reason to. Our defence was rock solid.

Your first point here is just plain wrong - it's a false opposition. Can you really not see the difference between illiquid assets, which are almost certainly encumbered (such as a house), and liquid assets which are not owed to anybody else and are thus available to do with as you please (such as money in the bank)? To put it simply: if you have a house valued at £500K (and let's say you own it outright) but nothing in the bank, you can only spend £500K if you sell the house first. If, on the other hand, you have £500K in a savings account, money which nobody else has any claim on, you can spend it if you so choose. Did we gamble money that we couldn't afford? I don't think that we did; yes, we spent money on players (and wages) but even once the play-off semi-final had been lost it would have been possible to rein in expenditure. The failure to do this was the start of our real problems, I would say. But our debt was pretty piffling by football standards, and the great majority of what we did owe was on the stadium, not to banks or other lenders. Nor, for that matter, to HMRC. You did indeed have a debt of £30M+ called in, which would have been unhelpful I'm sure (yes, that's deliberate understatement). But you went into administration with debts of £130M - so where did the other £100M come from? You'd hardly have been free and clear if the £30M hadn't been called in. And let's not forget that, when faced with a winding-up petition from HMRC (which you lied in court to get out of) your response was to get more players in - players with loan fees attached and high wages to pay. Regarding the winding-up petition, it's worth noting that HMRC are not in the habit of serving these the moment a single payment to them is missed, and this was true in Pompey's case. I recall HMRC making it very clear that PFC's debt to them had been built up over a considerable time, and that PFC had missed a number of agreed deadlines to start paying that debt. And let's not forget either that trading whilst insolvent is illegal; Storrie must have been aware of the financial position, and of Pompey's inabilities to meet their obligations, yet he kept right on as if everything were just hunky-dory. Your key argument seems to be that our cases were different only in a quantitative sense. I disagree. Our cases were both massively and qualitatively different. We got into financial difficulties and did our utmost to get out of them. We failed, we paid the price, in the end we got lucky. You, on the other hand, got into far, far greater difficulties - and tried to get out of them by a mixture of lies, deceit and (probably) illegal practice. As others on here have said, there really is no valid comparison to be drawn.

And when exactly did we spend £7M that we couldn't afford to spend? I assume you mean the 2006/7 season; if so, then we did indeed have the money to spend, as we had the second (and final) instalment of parachute payments at that time. Massive mistakes were made at the end of that season, with overpaid players being brought in when the money wasn't there to pay their wages; it's been speculated that those running the club at the time (chiefly Jim Hone) believed that a deal with Sisu was about to be reached and sanctioned spending on that basis. During the 2007/8 season, we found ourselves in crisis, so what did we do? We loaned out two of our better players to cut down on wages, and took further measures to reduce costs as much as possible. Lowe then returned and, love him or loathe him, he did his damnedest to pare costs to the bone, getting rid of several players, loaning out any higher earners he could, and putting out a team of youngsters and cheap acquisitions. Our overdraft with Barclays was reduced from £6M to £4M during this period (this is from memory, so may not be exact, but the reduction was large). When we went into administration, it was as a result of Barclays refusing to honour small payments. Personally, I think it came as a huge shock to Lowe, who thought he had the bank's backing to carry on as he was doing. Reasons for Barclays acting as they did are unknown - there are quasi-conspiracy theories about our account manager at the time and our administrator, though I'm never too keen on conspiracy stuff. It may simply be that the bank looked at diminishing attendance and dissatisfaction with Lowe, then decided that it was time to pull the plug. I don't know; only a handful of people do, and I'm willing to bet the Lowe isn't one of them. So yes, we were indeed insolvent (at least the holding company was, but I'm not one of those who thought that we should avoid penalty because of that technicality). However, we went into administration voluntarily as soon as this happened. The whole episode is nothing to be proud of, but my own view is that those running the club did their utmost to keep it running honestly, but failed in the attempt. How does this compare with Pompey? Well, we can wait for the results of the liquidators' examination to get the full gen, but I think it's safe to say that they were trading whilst insolvent, knowingly and for several months at least, before going into administration. During that time they faced a winding-up petition and (please do correct me if I'm wrong here) deliberately presented false information to the court in order to avoid being wound up - massively inflated estimates of player values, supposed evidence of a takeover just around the corner. They had also come under a transfer embargo; to get out of this, they made promises of repayment they must have known they had no chance of keeping. Once the embargo was lifted, they stretched and bent the rules laid down as to what transfers they could bring in by getting loans which entailed large fees, not to mention the increase in wages this brought about. It was remarked on by a few Premier League managers that they'd been unable to get certain players because they couldn't match the wages Pompey were offering at that time - this from a business facing a winding-up petition! So, knowing full well that they were trading insolvently, they set about increasing those costs which they were already unable to meet, all the while bleating on about the sheer unfairness of it all. Now then, can you see the difference between these two stories? You may dispute the details, but only at a minor level. The simple fact remains that Saints did their best to reduce costs and return to a stable trading state, in spite of the on-pitch problems this caused, and entered administration as soon as we became insolvent. Pompey traded insolvently for months, and did everything they could to avoid the consequences; furthermore, they deliberately worsened their trading position during this time. Why don't we go on about Plymouth, Birmingham or anyone else in the same way? Why do you bloody think? Yes, you can call it hypocritical if you like, but we're always going to be far more interested in the doings of our rivals that those of any other club. However, if evidence emerges of wrongdoing on a similar level at any other club (as it almost certainly will at West Ham should they fail to go up this season) the I for one will be outraged - in fact, looking at West Ham, I already feel that way. As for the CVA, we'll see when payments start, if ever. The "lies" you claim are interpretation as much as anything else; no payments have been made, but it's only being serviced because it was written in terms which enabled this to happen. One could claim that this is one further piece of dishonest dealing, though I'm sure you'd deny that. What can't be denied is the fiddling of the sums owed by Andronikou to ensure that HMRC weren't able to enforce a veto on the CVA. If HMRC had played their hand better in court a year ago, the CVA could easily have been overturned; as it was it stands, in all its glory.

Crikey, so you have - and with impressive results too, I have to say.