Wes Tender

I think that you're backing yourself into a corner here and beginning to contradict yourself. "I'm not saying the Red Tops don't have any decent journalists. I'm saying the Mail doesn't" Me: ...but is a journalist from one of the broadsheets necessarily a better football pundit? You: Yes.

No it's not off topic at all, SIP. I agree entirely with your opinion, posting the contents of a PRIVATE MESSAGE is beneath contempt IMO.

I'll have a look at the site when I have time. In the meantime, you might care to alter your opinion by looking at this years Press Awards http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/hybrid.asp?typeCode=99&navcode=92 Seven Journalists that work for the Mail or Mail on Sunday gain best awards and two others are freelances who also contribute to those publications. Amongst them are Reporter of the Year, Young Journalist of the year and Political writer of the year. Perhaps you ought to tell the Press awards that the Mail has no decent journalists, therefore they have got it all badly wrong.

Whitey, you see how 19C has avoided justifying his allegations that some of the tributes at the back of the book were fabricated? As usual, all bluster.

I'm not a Daily Mail reader, so exactly how does it help your understanding about me? Just because I happened to find quite easily a poll in a national newspaper that shot down in flames your absurd contention? Explain the thought processes that bizarrely led to your better understanding of me. I'd be interested in the insight into your thought processes. As for you DPS, you're obviously very narrow-minded if you won't accept the possibility that even the red-tops have their share of good journalists. Why, some of the journos progress from the red-tops to the broadsheets. Does that infer that all of a sudden they ceased being a crap journalist the moment they joined the broadsheet?

It was just an easy exercise to find an example from a quick search on Google, that's all. Disparage the paper's views on politics if you wish, but is a journalist from one of the broadsheets necessarily a better football pundit? Point is, Nineteen was talking through his posterior orifice as usual.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1158937/THE-LIST-Sportsmails-30-21-greatest-managers-British-football.html Lawrie comes in at number 27 on this list. Why don't you write and tell the Daily Mail that they have got it all wrong? Now, of course it is all about opinions, but suggesting that Lawrie McMenemy wouldn't make the top 100 is sheer lunacy.

Yes, of course I can. Why do you wish to know? It certainly has nothing to do with the two posts, which you made within minutes of each other. On the MLT thread, you suggested that some of those tributes in the back of his book might have been fabricated. I asked you to explain yourself, but see that you have not responded. Perhaps you would care to cast an eye over it again and entertain us with an answer.

Latest news on the Blue few:- Fahim has intimated that he isn't going to open his wallet before next Summer! I suspect that if he did, all that would fly out would be a few moths. Of course, by next Summer, they will be in the Fizzy Pop league. Apparently his future policy is not to buy players, but develop them through the youth ranks like Arsenal. I wonder how many promising youngsters will be prepared to join a club like theirs in freefall. Perhaps some of our tame Skate posters on here might express an opinion attempting to justify the fake Sheik not spending in the January window.

Well, that would be a damned good thing, as you have stated that you will not add anything further to that thread.

Just one paragraph? Certain posters on here couln't constrain themselves to that!

What exactly are you saying? Are you implying that some of those names or messages are fabricated? I very much doubt that any of those people who had messages published would change their opinion one jot. As far as I can see, you're the only person completely unable to divorce your opinions judging him as a player and as an individual. Although you stated that you'd made your last utterance on the subject, I'm sure that you can be excused if you respond, as others might well be interested to read an explanation for the bit I quoted from you.

It is a real shame that there are such morons about who will jump at the chance to deface it. The paintings on the cricket building in Hogsland Park are also excellent, but have also been defaced. The trouble is, you are now getting a breed of grafitti artist who are acknowledged as being proper contemporary artists in their own right, people like Banksy and the local council at Bristol are considering that some of his work ought to be preserved. Well, as far as I'm concerned, I'd be happier if the local authority did their duty and eradicated his work which is what the local population pay their Council taxes for. If other yobs obliterated it, then he has no reason to be upset about it, does he?

Where was the ridicule? I merely pointed out that it was ironic that you criticised the guy from Leicester for his lenghty and rather long-winded point when that was your speciality. I'll leave it to others to judge whether I had resorted to ridicule or whether it was an accurate observation. But credit where it's due; your point about liaison between the fans and the board is an excellent one and it is indeed a shame that the question was not asked "on air" as I would have been interested to hear what their opinion on it was. I reckon that they would have been receptive to a dialogue between the fans and the management, as only good can come from constructive criticism.

Don't you think that we all want that? Where was all the PR you talk about? As far as I could determine, it was just what one would expect a fans forum to be. Fans asked questions and the relevant person responsible answered them. Yes we have been promised a lot in recent years. But everybody with any intelligence realised that because the previous board didn't own a pot to p*ss in, we were unlikely to have those promises delivered. Plans have been laid down by the new owner, but rash promises have not been made. Instead, progress is going to be staged at a reasonable level commensurate with the league we are in and staged gradually to match our rising league status. I didn't detect much from you in the way of criticism of the last regime when results didn't come. You don't live in Hedge End by any chance, John?

Yes, you're right. Lowe gave us a huge number of sticks to beat him with. Up to you if you wish to call those sort of things trivialities, but overall, what it illustrated was a badly flawed individual who was capable of acts of childish pettiness on the one hand and an over-inflated egotistical streak considering he owned just 6% of the club on the other. When Lowe appeared in the team photo, it was because of his ego. When Liebherr does it, one gets the feeling that he wished to be associated closely with the team out of a sense of fondness and pride for the club he bought.

The title of the thread gives entirely the wrong impression. It suggests some sort of antagonism between a faction of fans hell bent on making waves and Pardew silencing them with his ripostes. The reality was that during the entire proceedings, for the most part sensible questions were asked and when they were directed at Pardew, he answered them calmly and with dignity. The guy at the front supposedly making constant interruptions couldn't be heard overmuch on the radio and it just sounded like the normal banter at these meetings. I have to laugh at Nineteen accusing the bloke from Leicester of taking 5 minutes going around the houses before making his point. It was good that he told us he came from Leicester, otherwise I would have thought it was Nineteen himself. Altogether, this was the most serene and uncontroversial forum that I have ever heard. I didn't even consider it worth attending, as I knew it would be an anti-climax compared to one where Lowe was Chairman. I wonder whether John of Hedge End attended? For me, the best thing that I heard all through the meeting, was Cortese saying that although Markus Leibherr owned the club, he had come to realise that he and Cortese were just the custodians rather than the owners. That was indeed a refreshing change from the mentality of the previous lot.

You don't see anything ironic in this sentence at all, do you? You're not prepared to look for scapegoats at board level, but quite happy to attempt to tarnish the image of arguably the greatest talent this club has ever produced. As for your first sentence, do you dispute whether Lowe took us down and delivered us into administration? I could be wrong, but I'm, pretty certain that he was in control of the club when those two things occurred, propped up by the Quisling. Or would you argue in the same vein that the Captain of the Titanic was not entirely to blame for his ship hitting the iceberg and that some blame should attach to others?

Thanks. I'll only have a good weekend if we break our duck this afternoon and I witness our first win under the new regime. That is a very serious matter. My enjoyment of the weekend will be further enhanced if the Skates get a thrashing by Villa. See, it doesn't take much to make me happy.

Methinks he doth protest too much. I'm not convinced.

See, that's what I mean. Your assertion that you need to have an intellectual ability to read and understand the Guardian is amusing in itself.

Of course they do. The actual newspaper itself is a joke and the more serious they attempt to be, the funnier they become. The same applies to their readers.

No. And the board and chairman at that time would have been there out of a sense of public duty too, not to line their pockets.

I'm getting fed up of challenging this opinion, but there is no way that I'll allow it to go unchallenged, no matter how many times it's repeated. Even on the limited funding that was available following our failure to gain promotion back to the Premiership, relegation to the third division was not inevitable. Granted it became almost inevitable following Lowe's dismissal of Pearson and replacing him with the clueless double Dutch duo and playing the youth team in his bizarre total football experiment, but it was not the only course of action that remained, so Lowe must accept total responsibility for the policy's failure. Getting back to the reason why Lowe and McMenemy did not get on, it was simply ego, Lowe not being able to tolerate the adulation and esteem that most fans hold for McMenemy.

As a generalisation this is true. It certainly cannot be argued that a stadium full of fans booing the players is going to have a positive affect on the teams' performance when compared to a stadium full of people cheering on the team. But we are not discussing crowds at a match, are we? On the forums, in the newspapers, away from the stadium, we can surely judge and be judged differently. For example, under the conditions of recent past history, was it better that we had the total unity that might have kept the incompetent past board in place, or was it better that dissent, criticism, protests, boycotts achieved the end result that we removed them and therefore allowed the new owners to become a possibility? I don't see anybody really calling for Pardew to be replaced and I certainly am generally happy with what he has done since his arrival. But this is a forum of opinions, so instead of total agreement, it is permitted for posters to disagree with team selection, tactics, players and other things that come under the remit of the manager without being accused of being disruptive influences which might jeopardise our progress. After all, even the owners of a successful business like to hear feedback from their customers on what could be improved in the way of prices, quality of service, etc.