pedg

Strangely that's what I thought about the original manifesto!

Who, indeed, knows? I think the possible scenarios are: 1) It was an official approach from a PA representative with explicit permission to contact SLH. 2) It was an official approach by a PA representative who had a brief to go out and investigate possible investment options. 3) It was an approach by a PA representative but they were doing it without permission from on high. 4) It was an approach by someone claiming to work for PA who had links with one or more of his companies who was trying to make legitimate money if he could marry the two off. 5) It was an approach by someone claiming to work for PA but was just part of a con to drive the share price up. 6) It was an approach by someone claiming to work for PA who was in it just for a massive wind up. Probably a lot more. Anyway you pay your money you take your choice...

I think you have to remember it was a friendly and just as you are not supposed to imply to much about how the players will play in real competitive matches that is just as true about the refs. Ref's are generally far more lenient in friendlies than competitive matches.

My feeling is that PA was not in the loop but that those involved at the club were too embarrassed to go to the relevant authorities and hold up their hands and admit they were duped.

It looks like a press release type statement by Wilde with no input from the echo hacks then I don't think its a problem in this case?

What's your take on the first half then?

Obviously a change in plan as on the OS JP was saying about giving the 'first team' 60 minutes then swapping it round.

half - time

Yet another purile question that has not got a hope in hell of being answered.

I think that needs to read We now know that someone claiming to represent PA had contact with the club several months ago. I am sure at the time there were those, prime example being crouch, who were convinced this was a legitimate approach by PA and I think it took a long while for some to be convinced it was not.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Remember there was a possible third option that the manager and the players might have learnt to get on. What would people have said if we had shipped out some well known and popular players? What would people have said if we had got rid of Luggy earlier? Persevering with the new manager and the players at the time, who, lets now forget were supposed to be professionals not school children, was an equally valid approach to take at the time without the wonders of hindsight and if anything the constant moaning on places like this about the number of managers that worked under Lowe probably contributed to the fact that he was kept on for too long in the end once it started to become obvious that there was not going to be any reconciliation.

And as I said the time in the season when we needed to replace Luggy was not a good time to find a decent manager (i.e. no half decent ones got fired before Luggy left!) which left us with the barrel scrapings we ended up with.

The one key mistake was probably one that very few people saw coming, that being the appointment of Luggy. I was one of those who welcomed his appointment as he appeared to be a successful manager and I don't think I can remember anyone warning about the internal conflicts that ended up with him leaving and the roundabout that ensued as we played manager catchup. He's not exactly the only candidate ever to apply for a job that interviewed well but then turned out to be a disaster.

Do you think its some sort of concious decision to have too many managers then??

It either says something about the changes that have occurred since the end of last season OR the eternal optimism of football fans as if at the end of last season you had said that a poll on 'here' pre season would show less than 3% thinking we will get relegated you would probably have been ridiculed.

Not sure. I think if he was not injury prone at the moment I would have said freddie. Given the options available KP is probably the best choice but does that make it a good appointment?

Polls will be ten a penny now... Would not be surprised if the mods remove the privilege but we shall see.. Feel free to be the first to start one on one of the other boards.

I was so overcome with the prospect of being able to start a poll without pleading with a mod that what little sense I have went awol.

I sort of tried to clarify (read make up for badly worded options) at the top. Should probably read. Promotion to Prem Top third that would stay in the CCC Middle third that would stay in the CCC Lower third that would stay in the CCC Relegated to Division 1

Promotion through playoffs = promotion Failure through playoffs = top half

First Poll and first sticky on the main board. At last a claim for fame...

Lets see if I can get the hang of this as I think it said members could start polls? (and for the pedantic where I said year I obviously meant season... ... and top half means say 3rd to 9th, mid table 10th to 16th, bottom half 17th to 21st...)

The OS article about squad numbers heavily implied that No 6 was being kept free for his return so I think its a fairly certain bet that will be his number.