Frank's cousin

Are we down already? must have missed that

hm indeed... many the same that say it was Luck when Lowe appointed strachan... it was justa good decisons, just as appointing JP and now Wotte were bad ones.

Should we name him 'JR'?

Up to something surely - plotting against us for sure - I imagine him like Blowfeld in some sort of underground volcano that doubles up as a pig farm by day... need to get the geologists onto it and see if there is any anciaet volcanic igneous rock in teh Cotswolds and take our search from tehre, the trith of lowes evil scheming will out!

Good shout

NO doudt she is Wes, but why swop one 'unqualified' chairperson for another?

or - 'meet me at the pub at quarter past 3, bring the missus and the kids if you want'

FRanks returned to his broken chair, symbolic of his broken heart, humiliated by his latest spelling error... made even worse by the fact it occured in a post questioning the intel... no not questioning, but making a statemnet of FACT about the intelligent of certain other posters.... embarrassed he lowers his fingers to the kyboard and plans his revenge...Hahahhahhahhahhah (evil sort of 1970s hammer horror laugh)

How dare you, she is excercising her moral right to support Mr Crouch in his pi**ing contest...

This is TRUE, It is a well know FACT that she/he peed standing up as it was shown on Spitting Image...

Just fell of the office chair... gone and feckin broken a foot off one of the klegs so am now leaning to one side... LOL stop it now.

Uhm darn two finger typing ******... i have corected said error just for you.

Not really funny at all saintJay... quite sad really because it shows we do have our quota of dence f**kers as all clubs do....

Too many big words hey, or whould you prefer cartoons? If you think my posts are boring fair enough, but it pales into insignificance to the inane blinkered drivel that is pounded out by you and Alpine. I woudl say open you miind, but would question whether there is anything there....

Feck me this really takes the usicuit - jeez this is tantamount to saying, feck off you cant support saints because you dont agree weith me.... you spend way to much time ranting about how crap LOwe is and attacking those who have a slightly different opinion, yet also attack them when you see their opinion changiong with time or thier stance softening - WTF?????? that is the whle point of being balanced and rationale - if teh situation cahanges or the mistakes are compounded their should be a change of attitude - same goes for if suddenly something good were to miraculously happen... That is the only difference between what the idiots who believ their are Luvviesa nd the so called luvvies is... the so called luvvies support what is good irrespective of who initiated it and criticise what ITHO is bad irrespective of who initiated it - with you guys its Lowe Bad everything the devils C*ck etc, or 'Crouch every thing good , I want him to bend me over and give me his hot man love' .... jeez and you have the feckin cheek to question our intelligence...you could not make it up.

Can of worms... Like? never met him, but going on some of teh things he's said publically, the arrogance and his UKIP politics its extremely doudtful that I would want to talk to hiim let alone like him Want him to stay? - this is where I get most crap slung in my direction - but in my defence your honour, I have never said nor do I think he should stay- I have however acknowledged the bits hes doen well and where there is logic in what has been suggestted or tried .... even if it failed - that is only fair - but because I cant see any logic in CRouchs approach and dont want him either, its assumed I musty be behind Lowe - most posters see that but some seem to stick their fingers in their ears and go wibble blah wibble balh because its easier to dismiss me as a LOwe luvvie than to provide any positive arguments against my criticisms of crouch - Stand up Alpine. Do I think he is best for the club - NO - irrespective of what he has achieved historically that was good, or whatever logic I see in some of his approaches - and yes I liked the IDEA of sports science, woodward in an appropriate roll and even the IDEA of a dutch duo - its now got to the stage where he needs to stake a sidewasy step - if only to help get teh club united again - I have no issue with him still being involved in an appropriate way but its time for new leadership that can galvanise the fan base and reinvigorate teh club - .... but its not Crouch IMHO.

Have we been taken over by Wolves yet?

Its clear that Lowe using the break clause in the contract was NOT simply because of Pearsons record... fair enough, most so called 'moronic luvvies' (delicately and intelligently put) would not even suggest that much... Pearson did enough to deserve to be given a chance form mine and many others perspective. Secondly you claim ' that getting rid of PEARSON was anything other than LOWE clearly demonstrating that he is more interested in revenge, and massaging his ego than the welfare of the club' Well if anything on this site is moronic that statement is clearly up there - on what do you base this and if you seriously believe that Lowe would deliberately harm the club then you are seriously paranoid. Lowe undoudtedly has his own vision and sure thats driven in poart by ego - he saw the timing as right instigate this vision based on teh premise of youth development on teh dutch system - a mini Ajax. As a premise its fine. Where he fecked up was in in a) the coaches appointed dont seem up to it, b) losing teh blend of experience AND youth, and c) failing to understand how quickly such a youthful side would become victims of underachievement when in a division that is still largly about graft and guile rather than pretty football. The two are not really linked - apart from had Pearson's record been exceptional, eg won 10 of 13 say, I think even LOwe woudl ahve thought twice about it, but as the record was good, but not great he felt the time was right. It has not worked, and thus it was obviously a mistake, but to assume it was deliberate is symptomatic of the 'moronic' nature of some of the antis claims and statements they present as fact...

Fair enough on the consistency point from you there, but can that be said for many others? The premise is discussion and debate on a point of interest, whether it appeals to you or others to join is your choice, as to what I am trying to achieve its that simple - a discussion. Having a discussion or debate about it with 20 posters and a few lurkers is not going to have any impact on things so whats the problem? You support Crouch and argue your case to anyone who will listen and thats your right. I dont support Crouch, and in this and other posts have raised the reasons why. When you can come up with something that is a solid reason for changing my mind on this, I will be more than happy to 'join the throng' - but to date there is nothing. Alpine seems determined that I make some claim that I support Lowe for some strange reason, I would if it were true, but I cant support the failure of the current system anymore than I could welcome Crouch and his pandering sychophantic claims. I have stated quite clearly that I have supported some of the decisions Lowe has made, and even stated my support/hope in the idea behind the dutch apprach at the start (Alpine of course has the largest chrystal ball and was able to predict its failure... because it was Lowe behind it rather than.... anyone else) I did not have that luxury of staring at his ball (thanksfully) so could not predict with such certainty it would fail - I believed we woudl struggle with the kids only approach, but that we woudl ahve enough to survive and teh experience they gained this year woudl be invaluable next seaosn... I have been proved wrong, fair enough and as a result am equally shocked that system ahs been continued - despite naturally hoping beyond hope that somehow Wotte squeezes enough points out of the reamining games to keep us up.... As you know I have NOTHING against Pearson, and if you fancy digging through posts I am sure you find posts of mine at the time indicating that I would have been more than happy to see him be given a chance - BUt tell me, what is different between Craouch illustraing teh Pearson release as a mistake and highlighting this publically, or Lowe defenders claiming his superior foresight in appointing strachan and using this as a positive? The point of this thread was to illustrate that there is none - if you are enlightened fine, but there are many who continue to differentiate because its suits their purpose.

Ha ha ha LOL you really are a joke... I may not agree we UP, we may even verge on the insult during the post sparing, but at least I can respect him for replying in depth and taking the time to read (albeit sometimes selectively it appears) and respond to points made rather than simple one line bull....

Cant really disagree with anything there.

Here you go again - gloating, whatever - they are publically speaking out about to get milage from it - PR spin at a sensitive time - Same ****e LOwe and Wilde used at a sensitive time last year - BOTH wrong. The issue wit MANY saints fans and Wanting them to lose - you are are now just trying to be clever, but even then you failed to see the subtle difference between what you say their and what was insinuated - the fact reamins when that was debated, that there are probably many fan out there who would be happy to se us lose if it meant the end of Lowe - thats different to happy to see us lose...but why worry about detail or accuracy if it does not suit your agenda?

Slowly for you UP.... Your assumption is not quite true - Crouch should not be publically using Pearsons current success as a stick because it has no credibilty - Like I said its no different from Lowe claiming superiour foresight following STrachan's success - which we are constantly told was luck from certain quarters - but thats only the start - the issue is that he should not be doing the public slagging at all, because he is lowering himself to the same standards of Lowe and Wilde... yet is not criticised for it... by others - but hey thats why I'm here! The 'keep Pearson on' thing was the teaser, the hook to get the debate going which I believe it has - back on page 1, I acknowledge that the type of contract was a very correct and wise approach - (although Jonah I believe argued that had Lowe offered this contract he would have been slagged for it being unsupportive...blah blah... which I guess is also true)... the point that is made by this and other debates is about consistency in our criticisms is sadly lacking - we are happy to slag Lowe and then you become morally outraged when anyone dares to criticise Crouch for doing the very same thing....simple really.

The prem is not cash cow - we just broke even because we doid not borrow to invest riskily in the taem - Folk like Jack walker simply lost/gifted their own cash to support their own wilde boyhood dreams - short term glory for what - his own ego too. You only LOOSE money in football not make it - so you are looking not for wise investors but foolhardy rich fans - rich fans who through tehir money away on a dream and then when it runs out leave the club with a list of players on big money contracts which the club cant afford.... now I can see that this short termist approach might appeal to fans - we want quick success and would happily hock the club if it meant 15 min of fame, but that is not what responsible owners do, they build foundations, infrastructure for the long term... we did that bit right, it was teh manager feck ups, some duff playesr on poor form and injuries, + some bad luck that fecked us.

UP Behave? Get off your high horse or Crouch's ring for a moment - You cant backtrack on that comment - fair enough if it was a slip up, but insulting intelligence is a lame way out of it and you know it... You seem again to be making it all up as you go along, something that you seem to do alot off UP, selectively editing posts, taking comments out of context to support the very rubbish you accuse others of. You are also debating over semantics of the contractual issue - someone is NOT sacked if either party exercise a contractual break clause. I have repeatedly said that all things considered NOW, it was a fecking huge blunder by Lowe to let him go, but I have the benefit of hindsight. AND so does everybody else - to now be making vocalising this in public as part of ramping up the PR and support is no differnt from Lowe and Wilde blundering heavyhanded with their threats this time last year - NO DIFFERENT - and to suggest it is is demonstrating ignorance. You are firmly behind Crouch, fair enough, that's your choice, I am not, thats mine, I find it irrating that he is allowed to get away with (in your opinion) what you and others have RIGHTLY accused Lowe of doing - medling publically at a sensitive time. I have no beef with Pearson and if you had really bothered to read everything you would clearly see that. I have no direct issue with CRouch apart from 1) his lack of a viable plan, 2) his sychophantic approach which he seems too hope masks the fact he has no plan (which was and remains my biggest issue with Wilde) and 3) the fact he is using Lowe's crap tactics yet its OK because he is not Lowe. Lowe and Wilde were not vociferous in their oposition to Perason - as you claim, not from anything revealed to any group I was with... Wilde suggested that they might eventually look at a 'European set up' possibly with or without Pearson involved - and the backing for pearson from a fans perspective was communicated at the time.... but you can be supportive og bothe pearson and see teh logic in other solutions - its not an eitehr or from a fans perspective - and to make it so is again making mileage..which is pathetic really.