Verbal

Of course we're dangerously unprepared! That much was evident at QPR - and Pardew said as much before the game. But are we in the same situation as the last two seasons, when the club was in the clutches of the Pol Pot of football? I don't think so. It's going to be tough playing catch-up with teams that have had a settled pre-season and with the -10. But we were playing a team from the top-half of the division above us today, and it showed. Even so, a few judicious signings - starting with Murty - and we'll be on the up. And by the way, we really do have some pretty good players in search of a team. Last season, we were dependent on a cut-price Dutch no-hoper to find it; this year, we have a manager with a proven track record to go looking for it. Things just aren't THAT bad.

Based on the last two games, he isn't even picked as a starter at Saints - and was lazy as hell for the half hour he was on at QPR. (Guess who came closest to scoring, though.)

With a few additions, I think this team has some potential. Yes, we lost, but it was good to see some intelligent interplay between Lallana, Schneiderlin and Mills; Harding looked like he's improving; and Murty is a must-buy for the sheer authority and calm he brings to the right hand side. The old weaknesses of last season persist - the team just looked lightweight and very young compared to QPR - which became even more glaringly obvious when the substitutes started rolling on. We didn't create as many chances as our possession suggests we should have had. And we have a habit of panicking under pressure. For some reason, we're also now over-hitting every single dead ball, and there's little evidence of much training-ground thinking going into corner-taking or free kicks in dangerous positions. But QPR are now a division above us, are not a bad side, have had a settled pre-season - and we simply won't face this kind of opposition in League 1. The CB problem obviously needs sorting out. They seemed to just stroll through us for the first goal, we panicked for the second, and we can thank 'Am I bothered?' Greg for the third. But the team was certainly more organised, the flanks looked much more solid (James had a good game and a terrific run in the first half), and there seem to be a few more leaders on the pitch. Assuming no one else leaves, this team is probably three signings away from being consistently competitive from the off.

Is that sarcasm, or have you just pureed your brain?

Roman numerals for 0?

Get a mac.

Have you seen him play recently?

Tim, Every single time someone raises something to do with racism on here, we get an instant demonstration of the thin veneer of civilization. Their are enough knee-jerk ravings against the 'politically correct', the 'thought police', or making fatuous comparisons with 'anti-ginger' attitudes, etc, to make this forum a rather depressing place - especially for those of us who think that the club, and football in general, has made some real progress on this issue over the years. I'm not sure what the solution is. Not to raise the question at all? Should the mods have a policy of only allowing the discussion on the Lounge? The problem is, the discussion never evolves: it always turns on the same, tired old claptrap. And I think it happens partly because many simply don't see the reality of racism and its truly gruesome history. Name-calling is one really quite tiny part of it. I agree with those who've called for this thread to be locked.

Step away from the dictionary.

Exactly.

Tim, I've just about worked out your top post, but what does the rest of it - eg, the above! - actually mean? I'm sure I'm missing something important. Thanking you in advance. V

The ITKs - or those that weren't just fantasists and lucky guessers - had their hooks into the old Lowe and Crouch regimes, as well as other assorted leakers and whistleblowers. No one, it seems, has any way into the ML regime or anyone close. Yet.

I know Glasgow's rotten but you'll never find your way back to Bournemouth down there.

Both of thee. Thy is going also?

So long as I can manage to wake up by about 1.30pm, I should be there.

Well, the Lowe years might have made it appear as though all the fans who detested the idiocies of that time shared a common interest. But there always were a whole raft of agendas (for want of a better word) lurking beneath the surface. I think that some - even, or perhaps especially, those who drew direct fire from the Great Leader - saw themselves as able to exercise more influence somehow in PLCWorld. Going to shareholder meetings, Trust meetings, or whatever must have given the sensation (if not the reality) of being an integral part of the whole thing. For many of the rest of us, the difference between ownership by a private individual and being shackled to a PLC is seen exactly the other way around. Things may go pear-shaped with the ML - who knows? But right now, we sure as hell prefer it to the parade of pygmies who lucked out with their share certificates and then lorded over the club from the boardroom as the whole shebang sank into near-oblivion. For a terrifying demonstration of monomaniacal pursuit under the 'shareholder democracy' of the PLC (actually as democratic as trade union block voting), just reflect on the year that's just been. It was so unspeakably awful that I don't think any of us has really come to terms with it. And in years to come, we'll look back on it with growing amazement that such a thing could possibly have happened. Now we're beyond that, I get the sense that some of the old warriors feel a little becalmed. I'm not talking about FF. Specifically.

Calm down!

Agreed, ESB - which makes FF's high-handed and pompous response all the more surprising. And thanks, Clapham - as ever, a clear and helpful post.

And the rest - not blessed with the x-ray vision of ITKness - said they don't know.

Who knows - it may even have worked to our advantage. The figure paid by Liebherr is undisclosed, but could well have been less than what Pinnacle had offered. At the time of the Pinnacle collapse, Fry was on record saying the club was within days of becoming extinct. Even with others in the wings, it could well have put the Liebherr in a stronger negotiating position. More funds for investment in the team? And we still don't know the whole truth behind the Pinnacle debacle. I recall reading Lynam saying something about a backer getting cold feet at the last minute. He could have meant the hapless Fialka, but I somehow doubt it. Someone else was surely in the shadows. In any case, even if Liebherr had taken over earlier, the extent of reorganisation necessary at the club, after all the years during which it was allowed to rot, is so extensive it would have taken up most of pre-season (and more) anyway. I'm still optimistic that the Pinnacle delay was little more than a blip and that we finally start heading back upwards.

I must have missed this. I can't remember a single post or thread decrying the idea of getting in good-quality free signings. As an alternative to pitching the kids in each week, I'm sure a few experienced free signings would have been welcomed especially after the Jan window. But they just weren't made, so how could anyone have been 'slaughtered' for it? There's an issue about the quality and experience of the few freebies that were signed, like Molyneux and World Class Ryan Smith. But has anyone's view changed about those two?

I can't see the problem. Swansea got out of this division with an entire squad costing under £1m. And AP may have a transfer budget rolled over more than one season. So it would hardly be surprising if he were planning to step up spending as we (hopefully) progress toward the CCC.

Well, maybe it's not so bad if the PR effort is directed at the media and corporate clients and not at the fans. Given our recent disastrous history, perhaps the club's first PR statement could be that they regard the fans, the fans' forums, etc., as off-limits to "Square 1".

I kind of expected it would get to this. But, 19, you'll have to carefully explain to your lawyer friend the details of the abuse you heaped on Daren and Wes, (admittedly as your alter ego Sundance Beast), otherwise he might think you're an innocent being torn apart by the internet wolves. Which you're not, obviously. But again, it would be nice if people would stop harping on about whatever confidence was betrayed. It's pretty disgusting really.

Well, only up to a point, Lord Copper. Personal attacks are certainly wrong, and it's uncomfortable reading. Daren's and Um's references to 19's mental health issues (whatever they might be) is not playing fair. I also recall Sundance Beast's vicious personal attacks on both Daren and Wes Tender - or, to be more precise, attacks on their families. And for 19C to pretend that he's not SB is untruthful, clearly. However, this really would be a dull place if we didn't argue our positions in a vigorous way. I find this thread, for example, illuminating, in the sense that it's flushed out the thinness of the attacks on McMenemy. We can, and should, have the most head-crashing rows - but there's no need to resort to ad hominem attacks