trousers

Cheers. I knew there'd be a simple explanation (to match my intellect)

Hands up. I was one of those calling for giving the academy boy(sh) a bigger/longer crack of the whip, but I don't recall us asking for a complete reverse of the previous philosophy of overloading the team with said journeymen. We were simply calling for a balanced approach. We've gone from one end of the scale to the other. So, not complete hypocrisy to be fair!

Just an observation, but you're comparing and contrasting results/outcomes. (Most) other people are comparing the effort and desire of Saints compared to these other sides.

So, who's telling the truth this time? Was it: (a) The OS ('it was nothing to do with money') or (b) Jan Poortvliet ('it was to do with money') ??????????????????????????????????????????? Anyone else getting fed up with all these half truths?

Go easy on me....was only a Wilde guess

Given the time of year I fear they'll look more like this...

Or, alternatively, we were so good that we ran Man Utd ragged thus making them ill equiped to face Derby 3 days later...

Not sure we quite lived up to the verb 'chase' to be fair... chase 1 (chs)v. chased, chas·ing, chas·es v.tr.1. To follow rapidly in order to catch or overtake; pursue

Our beloved chairman sits in the center circle 3 hours before the game and thaws the pitch out with his facial glow. Or so I'm told

Mystery, Inc.

Hmmm...so, given the ex-academy players don't count as 'assets' (I recall that being stated when the Gareth Bale sale debate was raging)....by getting rid of all the senior pros, Lowe is effectively in the process of asset stripping? So, getting the senior players off our books isn't a revenue generation (aka debt clearance/avoidance) exercise as everyone assumed....it's simply a means to an end so Lowe can call in the administrators? Yes? No?

If it's not in Barclays' or Aviva's interests to place us into compulsory administration then it can't be in their interests for the club to place itself into voluntary administration. Can it? As such - and this may be one logical conclusion jump too far - doesn't that leave us in a perpetual stalemate where Barclays and Aviva give us just enough rope to keep our heads above water but not enough rope to hang ourselves? Out of interest, what % of Barclays and Aviva's overall 'wealth' is the SLH debt? Given it must be relatively miniscule, why are they seemingly so reluctant to cut their losses in the first place?

I wonder how much has the club has paid Seymour Pierce over the last 3 years?

Jodrell Bank

The computer company? http://www.dell.com To be honest, I'm surprised the marketing gurus at SMS didn't think about that one before....

Maybe we will when we start playing football again? There's nothing for him to comment on at the moment... p.s. doesn't he still write in the match-day programmes?

Had to do a double-take this morning. I thought for one second Harry was talking about us when I read this quote in today's paper: Redknapp said: ‘People will accept players making mistakes, but giving up and not chasing back? People come to see effort and hard work as well as skill. ‘I told them at half-time that I would find out a lot about them after the break. That’s the first time I really tore into them. We are naive. There is no balance and no strength in depth. We don’t have the experience. This was a badly put together squad from day one.’ :yawinkle:

..

A good example of how a Bank's decision making and strategies can differ depending on who is at the helm..... Barclays unlikely to renew Premier League contract as credit crunch bites Last updated at 12:34 AM on 07th January 2009 The Premier League are sounding out Barclays over their appetite to renew their sponsorship, worth nearly £70million over three years, but the omens are not good in the credit crunch. There is still a season-and-a-half to run on the current deal but it already looks highly unlikely that Barclays will sign on again, especially as they are spending a meagre £5m over the length of the contract on promoting their sponsorship. The current deal was signed despite Barclays’ sponsorship team advising against it over concerns about the lack of promotional spend and in-fighting among the various parts of the Barclays operation - such as commercial, retail and capital - some of whom have not been keen on contributing to the football pot. It needed American Bob Diamond, head of Barclays Capital and a Chelsea fan who enjoys being stage centre when the Premier League trophy is being presented, to commit to endorsing the Premier League until 2010. But Diamond’s great enthusiasm for football is not expected to win the day again. This time the talks will involve Barclays’ chief executive John Varley, not known as a sports fan. A decision is expected within the next three months, with the Premier League keen to know where they stand well in advance of the expiry date. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-1107294/Barclays-unlikely-renew-Premier-League-contract-credit-crunch-bites.html Obviously not a close like-for-like when compared to our fate being in the hands of some middle-manager in Reading (alledgedy) but the 'human instinct' principle is comparable.

But why was it Cork's decision? As I mention above, surely it should be a matter between the respective club's management staff? (whilst, of course, taking on board any feedback from Cork) Given there's not a lot to choose between both clubs (bottom half of CCC with little cash) then if I was Chelsea it would be more sensible to keep Cork at the same club that he started the season at in the interests of continuity and thus player development. This has got an unpublicised REAL reason written all over it....in the same way we straight away smelled a rat over the Saga "international clearance (LoL)" affair....IMHO of course....

A 4 page Skacel thread and no-one has asked if he's signed yet. It's a sad sign of the time IMHO. No one can even be arsed to be mildly amusing anymore.

Where does Edwina Curry fit into all this?

Belated congrats on the new job at the Echo. Keep up the good work.

Short term pain....long time gain. Just a plausible theory. That's all.