Wes Tender

Superb as usual. Likewise I would be delighted if Lukaku fired Everton into the Champions' League at the expense of Chelski, but I suspect that Chelski's policy with him is to have him take points away from their rivals.

And dragging up that quote proves what exactly? As I said at the time, the statistical comparison you made was ridiculous, for the reasons I stated. As far as I recall it, you never responded at the time attempting to justify your position, but now with the benefit of hindsight, you raise it in an attempt to demonstrate how clever you are. In much the same way that you disparage Lowe for not taking a tracker mortgage on the stadium, even though his background in finance (and that of the Accountants on the Board) gave them far more financial expertise than yours. It was a gamble, as nobody could accurately forecast the way that interest rates would go, especially over a 25 year period. But in any event, you shouldn't get so precious over the additional cost of the interest, as the sale of a player or two was capable of wiping out the entire debt. But getting back to CB Fry's point, I agree with him that it makes you look ridiculous, using these historical posts in an attempt to demonstrate what a clever bloke you are. I'm afraid that it is backfiring on you, as nobody likes a smartass, especially the petty anorak variety. As for this:- ....in the past few posts you've resurrected your posts blaming Lowe for poor financial judgement, giving reasons why Adkins should be replaced, bad-mouthed fellow posters' opinions and all to massage your own ego. My advice to you is that when you find yourself in a hole, it is best to stop digging.

I'm retirement age next year and am considering Romania or Bulgaria among destinations where my pension will go the farthest Property prices and cost of living there must make them good bets until EU subsidies raise them to levels more akin to other member states.

I agree; it does make you look a tool.

Are you still too full of the Christmas spirit, Frank?

Apart, that is, from the disastrous destabilisation caused by Lowe's new season/new manager strategy and the necessity to sell all our half-decent players because of the lack of funds to keep us afloat. Wilde did serve one very valuable purpose though. When the EGM was called, it became clear to everybody that despite appearances to the contrary, Lowe's shareholding amounted to a paltry 5 - 6% and the whole board could only muster less than 30%. Up until then, the vast majority of the fanbase had believed that Lowe's shareholding was a substantial percentage and that it would be difficult to remove him and the board. I had often asked business associates of mine who were ST holders to guess at Lowe's percentage shareholding and invariably they would guess at over 70%. Lowe perpetuated this myth frequently, stating that if any investor was prepared to come in with £25 million, he would move aside as chairman. So we at least have to thank Wilde for exposing the weakness of the boards' hold on the club, which would have put us on the radar of potential investors or new owners. However, after the shenanigans that followed, we were lucky that we were still a good enough proposition with our infrastructure, assets and small level of debt, that we were attractive to Markus Liebherr after we went into administration. That Lowe and the charlatans from the old board lost all of their immoral windfall from the reverse takeover was a massive bonus. As Morph says, we can laugh about it now.

Of course you saved that link about you; and no doubt you look at it daily to massage your over-inflated ego. Ironic that you save some threads in an attempt to make yourself look clever by ridiculing others, when you can post something like this:- Question: Who do you want to replace Gordon Strachan? Answer: Apart from myself I would like Mickey Adams to come home. He's an expert at getting teams promoted, so Champions League here we come. And thanks for your confidence in my ability to expose the low IQ of the average football supporter, Misguided. Kind of you to credit it me with that knack, but my modesty forbids me crowing about it.

There's plenty of scope herefor misinterpretation of what Pochettino might have actually meant.

If you were really clever, then you would have found something else other than his hotel venture, which had been posted before on some other thread many moons ago and which is readily available via 1 minute of looking at his Wikipedia page. What you did instead, was to rake over old coals utilising your skills as the forum anorak, a saddo capable of archiving historical minutiae that has long ago ceased to be of any passing interest to the majority of posters. Do you know whether the hotel venture is the only thing that occupies his time now, or that indeed he even manages the hotel himself? The clever one on this thread is Saint Armstrong, who is the only one to respond with anything up to date and according to the Tranmere fans' forum there appears to be some substance to the story. No doubt this is an opportunity for Misguided to look really clever in their eyes by giving them chapter and verse info from his extensive archives on Wilde.

On to the second page and there has only been one answer to the OP's question asking what had become of Wilde and that nothing really concrete. All the rest is raking over old coals, or posters availing themselves of the opportunity to remind us all how clever they were in their attempts to dissect Wilde's financial background, when posting their comments from threads so long ago just makes them look like really sad individuals.

I'm really quite amazed. A post from sotonjoe that actually makes sense gramatically and uses some quite big words of more than one syllable. It almost leads me to believe that there are two persons using his account name and that this is the other one. Regarding the post that FF replied to, I don't see much support from others for sotonjoe's OP

Did many insist that those players would not leave us? I seem to recall that there was an overall acceptance that as we were paupers, especially under the Lowe regime, that we would have to accept any decent offer made for a player to keep afloat year on year. And we accepted that players would naturally have their heads turned by the opportunity to play for a much bigger club rather than fear the constant battle against relegation that we endured.You don't seem to have recognised that there has been a change in our fortunes during the past few years and now the players are more likely to feel that with us they have a brighter future from featuring in a team on the rise, rather than warming the bench for one of the glory teams, many of whom are currently in a state of flux.

I have it recorded from last year, so will probably watch it tomorrow night.

Yes, I am saying that Pochettino had some choices apart from playing the pair. Fonte was on the bench, so why put him there if he was not fit enough to play? But my main gripe was with him playing Fox and there were certainly alternatives there. I presume that had Fox been injured, then those alternatives would have to been implemented and in my opinion those alternatives would have been preferable to playing him even if he was fit (fit physically, that is, not fit otherwise, as he isn't fit otherwise). What is this overall fatigue in the team you talk about? Spurs had a midweek Cup match, we didn't. Weren't they tired? Do we need a break of more than 8 days to recover from our last match? Or do you mean that the Pochettino regime is responsible for the players' tiredness? And this tactical naivety, was that in the substitutions alone, or was it the team selection? Why shouldn't I question Pochettino's tactical nous if he plays Fox and Hooiveld again, even if on the face of it he is "forced" to by circumstances? When do you reach the point whereby certain players prove themselves to be liabilities whose shortcomings will be ruthlessly exploited by rival managers and therefore gamble on finding alternatives who might do a better job and who will be an unknown quantity to rival managers? Shaw, Chambers and Ward-Prowse were very recent introductions to the first team and there are apparently a couple of youngsters knocking on the door. Fonte and Shaw will probably be back anyway, but if we find ourselves without them again soon, I'd happily see the blooding of a couple of youngsters rather than Fox and Hooiveld

You've obviously missed all of the other posts in the past when I've been critical of Fox. I wasn't a fan of his, even in the Championship. At leat Hooiveld in the Championship used to contribute a few goals in the plus column as well as in the minus column. If he gets the opportunity to play further, he could end up our top scorer - for the opposition.

Apart from his direct run towards their box which resulted in our first goal, Fox was otherwise totally crap. There were acres of space to our left flank for Spurs to exploit and they gleefully availed themselves of every opportunity. It must be common knowledge for every manager with any nous that when we play him, he is the weak link. Unfortunately Rodriguez offered him little protection, which didn't help.There was one time when my count of the goals that Spurs should have scored reached 6, but thankfully they missed some chances where it would almost have been easier to score.Their defence was also pretty dire, but ours was even worse. There was probably no better time to have played them, but with Hooiveld and Fox playing, we blew it. If Pochettino plays either of them again, then one will have to seriously question his tactical ability. Enough is enough.

Just a small detail and regarding Factless Allen, so no surprises here. It is just that when he reported on the upcoming match they have just lost, he referred to the Skates' opponents as "lowly" Bristol City.Either the irony of that statement doesn't register with him, or he genuinely believes the Skates to be in some superior position where the adjective somehow doesn't apply to them too.

Everybody is entitled to their opinion, whether they be the elderly who have lived through an era when things were different which have since become unacceptable, or the younger element still a bit wet behind the ears through the inexperience of life which would lend their opinions an element of balance. But your last sentence is just plain arrogant.

As far as I understand it, she expressed nostalgia for a toy doll that was popular among children when she was a youngster and the whole thing has been blown out of all proportion by the PC brigade, supported by over-sensitive and small-minded individuals like you and solentstars. There is a parallel with the popularity of the Black and White Minstrel show, which had viewing figures in the millions each week and no doubt there is a substantial element of senior citizens who feel nostalgic about that programme too. That doesn't make them racists either.It seems to me that you two are the dozy ones, because you are unable to understand that people who lived in different eras have different views on many things that have been shaped by the prevailing ideals and morality of the day. In fact the irony seems to have escaped you that your opinion of her is ageist and generalistic when you make a connection that because she is old that perhaps she might not have possession of all of her marbles. As for the diversity training, you two can be added to Pap as among those who feel that there is validity in the interference in the political process by non-elected Council Officers acting beyond the compass of their jurisdiction. If they wish to indoctrinate their own staff, fine. But Councillors are not employees of the Councils they represent and as I said before, she should tell them to go to hell.

Bravo! Attempting to justify "diversity" courses by the thought police in this petty instance against the background of soldiers in Northern Ireland, or the implications of naive tourists failing to understand the cultural imperatives of the country they are visiting is taking this matter way out of proportion. It's not. This is a local councilllor who was elected by a majority of her constituents. She represents a part of Brighton comprising voters of a social demographic the majority of whose opinions on a range of policy matters and political leanings are likely to be in accord with her own. Any candidate putting themselves forward in any type of election will obviously have to be seen to represent the broad interests of their electorate in order to be elected. Do you really believe that the local Council officers should have the right to interfere in the political process and insist that certain elected Councillors should undergo indoctrination of ideas which they consider to be politically correct? Let's just extend it to MPs too, shall we, and have the Civil Service Mandarins dictate that all candidates up for election will have to undergo diversity training before they can stand. Interference in petty matters like this by Brighton's PC Gauleiters is the thin end of the wedge, a constant drip drip that is increasingly frustrating and annoying the man in the street and eventually there will be a backlash against it.

You being you, I'm not altogether surprised that you happen to know loads of people having had to undergo "Diversity" training. I've never heard of it before, but nothing about the lefty PC brigade surprises me anymore. But in this case it isn't the right result and as I said earlier, the "offending" Councillor is not an employee of the Council and should tell the Council Thought Police to go and take a long walk off a shorter Pier. Either one of the two will do.

Thinking about this further, what has this to do with the Council? If she has done something illegal, she can be prosecuted, but if she refuses to undergo this "thought Police" style indoctrination that the Council is proposing that Councillors undergo, what can they do about it? Councillors are not employees of the Council as such, they are the elected representatives of the voting public. If she doesn't represent the views of the voters in her ward, then they will not elect her next time round. But I have a strong suspicion that she is more in touch with her electorate than the Brighton Council officers are. If I was her, I'd tell them to go to hell.

So they ought to have said that they were a bigger club than Monaco?

They sell it in the B & Q across the road from them.

So the Council wasted all that time and expense on the basis of 4 complaints from 3 people. How few people does it take to warrant an investigation? And what would be the situation if many more people agreed with her remarks? Do their opinions not count too?It comes as no surprise at all that this is Brighton & Hove Council, and I would argue that their petty left-wing lunacy which has taken political correctness to new depths of crass stupidity, has done far more to bring the Council into disrepute than the opinion of this Councillor.