The Kraken

The man from Del Monte did also; he was neither cool nor uncool.

And said person is clearly an idiot. However, labelling all people as either pro or anti Cortese does nobody any favours, yourself included. Most of us are vested with a sense of intelligence that means we can make decisions based on the information in front of us, rather than the bandwagon rolling past. It's a completely different thing to ramp up an anti-club agenda than it is to rationally inspect and debate decisions which clearly affect the running of the club and the fans' involvement with it. A little bit of respect from all sides wouldn't go amiss, not least that it might rescue this forum from the playground slanging match it has become.

Resorting to picking up grammar and spelling; well in, you've done me, you wordsmith genius. And again, you choose to identify everything in black and white. Just because a vocal minority want to go over the top with criticism it's a shame you're incapable of comprehending that there's many people who reside in the middle ground, who will criticise and praise the chairman/club for each individual decision they make.

Well done for outlining the black and white and ignoring the massive amounts of shades of gray.

While there has certainly been a good deal of over-the-top criticism of Cortese, I think it does a dis-service to fans to suggest that people can't express their sincere disappointment about how this has all come about. The sacking of Wally Downes and Stuart Murdoch as well as Pardew would inidicate that this is a complete structural change rather than a kneejerk reaction from the chairman, in addition to the club statement and comments from the first team player alluding to such. As such, I think it entirely justifiable to criticise the timing of all of this. I'm sure Cortese has his reasons for wanting to make the change, but it really coulod not come at a worse time. We have plodded through pre-season and the early season games in the knowledge that we're still 2 or 3 players short of the squad that we need, and it would be folly to suggest that Pardew's impending departure had nothing to do with that. So I don't think blaming the fans for reacting this way is all that fair. Cortese simply has to take his share of the blame for the shambolic way this has all been handled. Do I think he is capable of putting a top level structure back in place? Of course. But to put ourselves in a position of weakness before doing so is a failure on his behalf that he needs to rectify, and very soon if last night is anything to go by.

Bad to worse. No Barney for 3 games, brilliant.

The only problem with that is that, in hindsight, we'd have been much better off if AP had been sacked a month or two ago. At least that way we'd have had a manager in who would have been allowed to bring in a full complement of players to mould the squad to his desire. With the approach Clotese took we now have a squad that is 2 or 3 players short of what we need, has some glaring omissions still (no pacy wing replacement for Antonio, no competition/backup for the CMs, no backup for Lambert), and no time left in the window to bring in replacements. Nice work Nicola.

I hate feeling like this; I really don't care about this game and almost think it could be beneficial for us to get thrashed, as it might actually wake Clotese up to the fact that we need a good manager to provide some direction to the team.

Whispering Dave hinting that Wilkins may have been under pressure to play Guly. Also that, if you're going to play him, why not play him in his natural position? Fair points Dave.

Precisely. There were two options; back AP as the manager, bring in the players he needs and if it's not working after a month or so make the change. Or sack him with plenty of the window remaining so a new manager has plenty of time to make a mark. We did neither, and now have a squad 2 or 3 players short of where it needs to be, no new manager identified, and totally reliant on the loan market only for the new manager to complete the squad and make it his. All in, a total shambles that falls solely at the feet of Clotese.

For those who attend one-off games I wouldn't expect prices to come into it too much. It would more affect, in my eyes anyway, people like me who go to anywhere between 5 and 15 games a season. At the moment I'm just totally disinclined to spend out a non-inconsiderate sum for cup games which I have priorotised as very low in importance anyway.

Far too early to tell; until we bring a new man in it's totally up in the air. I'd say the longer we take to appoint a new man, the more it may hamper our promotion chances.

Sky Sports News still reporting that Saints have appointed Paul Hart for the manager's position.

I wonder if there's any restrictions placed on fans taking pictures inside the stadium and the local paper using those? Would seem a good way around the ban and also a good way to engage with the local readers.

For League 1 or 2 it's not so critical to have such a huge stadium; take the JPT final as an example where Carlisle only brought 20 odd thousand supporters. Only the likes of us, Sheff Wed and Charlton would justify the need for more than 30k tickets each. 60K at Emirates would be plenty for most sides.

Would be sensible to see who the teams are and make a decision from there; so either Emirates for southern teams or Old Trafford for Northern teams. But then this is the Football League, so common sense would go out of the window in that case....

Fair comment about the start of the season, but you'll find that if you discount the first 2 away games, whcih we lost, from then on to Xmas our form was very similar to the second half of the season (W4, D4, L2). Also, while we did play 4 of the top six before Xmas, in the second half of the season we also beat the Champions and played Millwall who went up, plus comprehensive wins over teams around us at the time in MK Dons and Bristol Rovers. Plus our run in the JPT. So I don't agreee that the second half of the season was much less impressive; I agree that it took us 3 or 4 games at the start of the season to get properly going but after that our away form was pretty much consistent for the rest of the campaign.

Actually, our overall form in the first half of the season and the second half were very similar. Up to Xmas we registered 16 points from 12 games (W4, D4, L4). After Xmas we registered 17 points from 11 games (W4, D5, L2). So you could even argue that we became more hard to beat away from home in the second half of the season.

Again, we're debating something that is an assumption. We have no idea exactly when they are being sent home. They could be doing routine fitness training with the entire squad for 90% of the training then are separated for specific tactical work. Wouldn't be a problem then. It could just be the development sqaud that are being sent home, i.e. young lads who won't be expected to break into the first team for another year or two at least. Again, I don't see the problem with that. It's an ideal world that we would have all of the squad vying for places, training together for everything etc etc, but in the real world it just doesn't work like that. Your analogy, while valid in its own right, is just not comparable to the demands of professional football. AP has spent a lifetime in football, as a top level player and manager. Whatever decisions he makes on the training ground are clearly ones steeped in the knowledge he has gained in that time of how things work within a football club. I find it strange for a man with 15 months experience of running a club to be so directly involved in day to day policy of team matters.

That doesn't really make sense though; no matter how successful or otherwise the current owners are they will always be credited with and thanked for saving the club when it was on its knees. And the Pinnacle group will always be remembered for the tyre-kicking non-entity they actually were. No amount of success or prolonged failure by the current incumbents will change people's opinion that Pinnacle almost destroyed SFC, and Liebherr/Cortese saved it.

This is the first time I've heard it and whether it's true I don't know, so we're debating something all based on an assumption. But they could be being sent home as they're not in the travelling squad for the next game, therefore don't need to be in a meeting to talk about specific tactics. Who knows? But they'd get their chance like any other player would do, as I said that approach to training is implemented by most if not all professional clubs, and they seem to get by just fine with it.

Fair enough point in itself Wade; though in this case we're being told that results weren't the main issue for the sacking, it was more to do with the division between the first team and development squad. Which fits in with the quotes attributed to the first team player. I find it strange that Rupert Lowe was castigated (and rightly so IMO) if he was seen as stepping on the toes of the management of the first team, yet Clotese is seemingly immune from this accusation as he saved the club and has mapped out a blueprint for our future.

I've been to see training a few times at Staplewood, before AP and after; it's often completely unproductive to have the whole squad training together (too many numbers) so they are split into first team and reserves. Nothing at all sinister in that, I'm sure it happens at many if not all clubs. And it's up to the manager and his coaches to decide how he conducts training, as that's what he's paid for. Not the chairman.

I'm alot more worried about the quotes attributed to a first team player. One first-teamer, who asked not to be named, said: "The chairman told us he felt the club had become too divided. "He said he was concerned that some players were not getting a chance and he wanted all the squad to feel part of the club, not just from one to 11 but from one to 30." That strikes me as Clotese interfering with team affairs, which is a massively dangerous route for a club chairman to start going down.