sotonist

The fans don't deserve anything in particular. The players deserve to go down but many of them will move on and won't have to. The owners deserve to lose their investment but will probably keep things going long enough to make a profit on the exercise.

this will go down well with the people paying for it all.

not the point I was addressing. just that sturrock wasn't working (largely because of the players) but nobody (apart from the players) would have asked for steve wigley in replacement.

i distinctly remember the fans wielding control over the board's hand and demanding that puel be replaced by someone worse. the message was clear.

should have let sturrock get on with the job.

bono estente

obafemi afolabi olufela olomola chris waddle

the club had a charge of this kind efore gao bought the club. it's not impossible gao has done a glazer, but i've seen no evidence of it. unless he has done a glazer, the club won't be in debt in respect of the transfer of KL's shares.

Don't get this at all. Maybe it's fair to say that if he's borrowed 200m to buy the club he will need to leverage the club's revenue and assets to pay off his debt, but that doesn't meant he club owes any money. it just means that the controlling shareholder owes money and has the means to extract money from the club e.g. asset stripping. maybe i've missed something.

or it would fit on the old "lowe out" plane banner.

this kind of thing went so well with portsmouth and gaydamak.

bob had ***** tits.

Textbook racism.

That doesn't necessarily defuse the situation on its own though. What happens when a member of staff addresses them as sir or madam? Unless we revert to comrade, a snowflake is going to kick up a **** storm because of their own gender dissonance. I can't imagine thinking it was worthwhile complaining if I was "misgendered".

agreed. if the designation serves such little purpose that we can choose it, then there is no reason for anyone to know or care about it, least of all the football club.

how is torres relevant?

well ****... it nagged my brain and my memory of it was completely wrong. points based on difficulty of fixtures related to last year's finishes. yeah that's a hole in the concept. you'd have to look at their previous season's tables at the same time to see how close to the final table they got and give it a credibility score on that basis.

edit: second thoughts might be no extrapolation. just points for exceeding your previous season's results. again i'm just operating from memory. no desire to read up on it again.

I looked at this when we were up at the top of that table a few years ago. iirc it's based on your previous years results and how you have done this season in relation to the corresponding fixtures, then extrapolated to the fixtures you have remaining. sort of a table based on form.

ryan bertrand.

I don't think there's any amount of coaching that could make forster pretty

If Watson hadn't been in charge of his development perhaps. Davis showed no improvement under Watson, Gazza showed no improvement, Forster has regressed, and McCarthy is getting no better from what I've heard. Boruc didn't seem to be affected, but then he seems very much his own man.

malcolm elias went to fulham and they did rather well for a bit. not so much now. not sure what his contributionw as like at liverpool.

folly, griffit, cranie, hall, mills, blackstock. where did it all go wrong? (the answer is pretty much immediately afterwards)