Dark Munster

It's becoming a bit of a concern that our 6' 7" giant seems to be bottling out of marking opponents with the biggest arial threat. The same happened against Burnley and Crouch.

We'd be 8 points ahead of them (almost safe). Also if we'd drawn both matches against them. They don't call those 6 pointers for nothing.

JWP seemed to cover every blade of grass. Clear MoM for me.

2-0. The most dangerous lead.

OK, how about "We shouldn't have sold a striker in January"?

If they didn't care about relegation why sack Hughes (costing millions)? Why be content with losing hundreds of millions of PL money? If we were in Huddersfield's position I could understand preparing for life in the Championship. The long and short of it is they are stupid beyond belief. They thought the good run under Ralph could continue, even with weakening the squad further and pocketing the extra dosh. We may still of course survive, but January was a huge, moronic gamble for relative peanuts. Like gambling your house to win 100 quid.

So getting rid of Gabbi wasn't enough for a goal-shy squad??? Mind boggling insanity from the club. Suicidal.

Yes, but that was before Gabbi was sold. Now he's gone they are all much better players.

He's now available.

Not just some, Gunn should take all of the flak for not hoofing it.

Well if it's true that he was happy to see the back of Gabbi and Cedric without them being replaced, then he has to take his share of the blame.

BTW for those slating Stephens re the second goal, I disagree. Yes he got himself under unnecessary pressure initially, but he did get the ball back to Gunn, who tried to be clever by playing a quick pass to one of our players, and instead booted it straight to an Arsenal player (resulting in the goal). It was 100% Gunn's fault, who could easily have hoofed it to the half way line.

I think you mean the club was confident we could survive with the current squad reduced by 3 capable senior players (plus Hoedt).

It's a squad game, Lord T. Once Ings (predictably) got injured it exposed the lunacy of getting rid of Gabbi, who has the ability to score, as we all know. Certainly better than Nobody (his replacement). And if Valery is out injured/suspended, the loan of Cedric will also be exposed for the lunacy it was. Good riddance to Hoedt I think we all agree.

Don't forget the farce of loaning out Cedric without a replacement as well. Injuries should always be anticipated (especially Ings).

I prayed that our January transfer business would involve a striker. I should've specified that I meant getting one in.

Remember the good old days when we were looking at European qualification permutations?

A) No. He could've entered into it before the cutoff date. He made a pathetic excuse afterwards that he waited because the points deduction shouldn't apply, since it was the parent company that went into administration, not the club. Anyone with half a brain knew that it wouldn't fly with the Football League. And even if he really believed that it may work, why take the risk? It was a vindictive move, just like getting rid of Pearson. B) He obviously thought we could avoid administration at that time.

True dat. Although I'll see your "annoying" and raise you an "infuriating."

Because it wasn't a high enough offer for his shares. The fact that the ruddy-cheeked bastard took us into administration just after the cut off date (meaning the points deduction would be applied the following season), shows that he didn't give a shit about the future of Saints (once it was clear he was off). Not to mention the earlier removal of Crouch-appointed Pearson, a move motivated by vindictiveness rather than what was best for the club.

We may not be so lucky next time. If we gao down, who knows we could be doing a Coventry in a few years.

I trust you give them an infraction?

I'm a big fan of VAR, but that's a joke (penalty to Schalke). Why did it take 5+ minutes? 30 seconds needed, at most. Secondly it was clearly ball to arm.

You're missing the point. The board shouldn't have sold Gabbi without bringing in a replacement first. You're missing the point. The board shouldn't have sold Gabbi without bringing in a replacement first. You're missing the point. The board shouldn't have sold Gabbi without bringing in a replacement first. This ^^^^^^^^^