badgerx16

This was how I passed yesterday afternoon, so as not to 'jinx' the match - obviously worked :cool:

The wife's team are Man City, so I'm sure we will

At last a match where we turned our dominance into a result ; just looked at the BBC match stats, 57% posession, 9 to 3 shots on target, 10 to 4 shots off target. If only, for once, we can make it two good games in a row on Tuesday. COYR

No Graeme le Saux ?

Lol, he wants cover because of injury concerns ! Where Powell is concerned, there will certainly be injuries !

Abso-bl00dy-lutely :cool:

David Peach, closely followed by Frannie Benali. Bale and Bridge weren't here long enough and still hadn't matured by the time they left; and neither had half the commitment and willingness to die for the cause that always made up for FB's lack of ability.

And there is the quandary; stay away and stop putting money into the club, with all the potential disasters that can follow; or go to the games, and give the board justification for sustaining their current unpopular policies. This is notwithstanding the point that simply increasing the gates will in no way alter the poor quality of the 'product' on display.

Problem is the second verse : You've got to spread joy up to the maximum Bring gloom down to the minimum Have faith or pandemonium's Liable to walk upon the scene Very little joy, plenty of gloom, and losing faith

Nick, we could be playing to a full house every week, but with this team and management setup the results won't change. Any increased income will go down the same drain that our finances have been p155ed down for the last season and a half. I want the team to win, hell I even think JP is a nice guy - but 'nice' doesn't win. Most of all, I want a significant change in the boardroom. This is the only thing that I believe will turn things around.

Pretty much the worst in the entire football league, apart from Grimsby. Premiership - Blackburn W1 D2 L4 / Wigan W1 D2 L3 CCC - Saints W1 D3 L5 League 1 - Colchester W1 D2 L5 League 2 - Grimsby W0 D3 L5 / Barnet W1 D2 L5 Conference - Lewes W2 D1 L6 / Forest Green W2 D1 L6 :mad:

The people who continually put a rose-tinted positive spin on our continually poor form, poor team selection, poor tactics, and poor manager are perpetuating the disastrous regime of Rupert and the Quisling. I am POSITIVE that in this way they are having a NEGATIVE influence on the club's chances of survival in this division.

We will start the game with 11 playing 11, and the score at 0-0. All we have to do is keep it like that for slightly over 90 minutes - should be a doddle.

Rupe's needs as many in the shop window as possible ready for the January sales

Why, if somebody watches an entire match on Sky / Setanta, does their opinion of the performance not count ? Maybe another thread could be started stating 'the positives are killing the club', because their blinkered persistence with 'if we carry on playing like this we will be fine' is masking the real cancer eating the heart out of SFC ? The main contention is over the idea that we have no choice but to play "the kids". I do not believe that we are the most cash-strapped club in this league, but we are the only ones gambling so much on such an inexperienced squad, or on such a limited manager.

Don't believe the hype As has been said elsewhere, all 'stay away' ST holders are included.

Psssst, take a look at the league table and our results so far. The only way we won't get relegated is for three worse teams to have sustained their cr4p form for as long as we maintain ours.

I'd settle for playing sh*** and winning; playing well and losing has got a bit boring.

And LOST !!!!!!! ( Again ). Some will blame the ref for sending off the Mule, but we should have been three down before we scored. If the defence are going to concede two goals a game, we need a strikeforce that can at least match that, just to get a single point. The experiment might produce pretty football, and we can appear to be dominant, but that is all it is, an appearance of domination ; we have no cutting edge up front, and no steel at the back. Same old same old.

So when don't you obey them ?

I don't think :drinkers: could handle Iwelhumo, would rather have:snipe:.

He won't know until Rupert tells him

Children's Social Services staff are some of the most pressured people you can find, especially in some of the inner city jungles. You can get 999 cases right and get zero appreciation; but get #1000 wrong and you are slated, whether it is not taking a child into care when with hindsight you should have done, or taking a child into care and then being told that you were over-reacting. They are told that the best place for any child to be is with the parents, and everything is geared to that aim. No system could ever be perfect, yet we always have to have a scapegoat; followed by yet another public enquiry and hence more legislation to complicate and confuse an already over-whelming level of beaurocratic overheads. In this case the level of deliberate deception on the mother's part was inconceivable.

But I have never said that any of this is FACT, have I ? As I said, people will read into what is printed exactly what they want to see. Surely you don't believe everything you read in the press, particularly given the generally sycophantic tone of the Echo ?

Take the words at face value, then read into them what you want :- "Rupert was keen to play the youngsters", "Rupert didn't pick the team, Harry did"; ergo Rupert tried to influence team selection but HR resisted, exactly what was inferred in the original thread.