Joensuu

I'm not sure I understand egg's argument. Based on every method of looking at it, Saints have massively over exceeded in their development of high quality youth. Not only have we produced a large number of high quality players, but we've done so while outside of the top flight. egg, to make your argument make sense, could you tell us: 1) another club outside of the top flight who has developed larger numbers of quality players than us over the past decade. Is their any other team even compatible? 2) another club in our division who has a player of the quality of AOC outside of their first team. If AOC were at almost any club in this league he'd already be established (and not breaking through). 3) another club in our division who has developed 2 top premier league players in the last decade. 4) another club in our division who has set the bar as high when it comes to having quality in the first team. This is the level of quality young players will have to reach before they can be considered to be 'knocking on the door' of the first team. I'm sure players such as Gobern and McNish would have passed the grade at most clubs in our division... but our high expectations causes us to underrate them. I can see an argument for us having been massively successful in our recent youth development; but can't grasp how anyone can suggest that we might have failed in this area. Oh and I don't care about Illingsworth, every club has a media 'rent-a-fan', if it wasn't him someone else would have stepped up. It's certainly not something I'd choose to do.

Spot on. Of course I assume the irony that the ginger-obsessive has failed to realise is that the butt of the joke in the 'German' sketch isn't either Germany or Germans, but instead the narrow-minded racism and xenephobia of Middle England. As such, the German sketch would be fully supported by most people on the PC side of the fence. What people seem not to realise is that 'PC' isn't a stupid tier of bureaucracy (as it is so often depicted), but instead what people used to call 'common decency'.

I know, he hates anything that whiffs of state control. I hate anything that whiffs of authoritarian. But wouldn't it be refreshing if one day one of these threads came to a conclusion. Lets say Stanley has been backed into a corner, has an epiphany and turns round and admits that 'you know, I think I might have been misled'. Never going to happen unfortunately.

You're confusing two different questions here: 1) How many people have been murdered for opposing the UAF? (Answer = 0) 2) How many people have been murdered for opposing Communism (Answer = nobody knows, but it runs into the tens of millions). The crux of your argument is that the UAF are communist. As they patantly aren't, your argument falls very flat. Perhaps a better question to ask might be 'How many people have been murdered for opposing authoritainism whether left or right wing (Answer = nobody knows, but it runs into the tens of millions)' - as this would also throw facism into the repressive and objectionable mix.

Still wrong... So in your eyes why did Teddy 'bring back the birch' Taylor sign up to the UAF? Is it because: 1) He's a commie in disguise (and spent his entire career hiding it) 2) For some 'political gain' (don't forget, this is one of Thatcher's cabinet, with career behind him... what gain is there to be made.) 3) He was tricked into it (is Sir Teddy a bit dim?) 4) Because he truely opposes facism? What about the well known socialist commie Reverend Smyth? You know, the ultra leftie, err, Ulster Unionist. I have no idea. I don't know anything about this case. I assume that future opposition to the vedict (perhaps an appeal) might depend upon whether he commited the crime. A diverting, but somewhat strange tangent.

You're not suggesting that many Tories harbour some amount of sympathy for facism are you?

Were all these other MP's hookwinked by the 'commies' in disguise too? http://uaf.org.uk/about/founding-signatories/

I disagree that the UAF are a communist organisation. They aim to not be affiated with any part of the polical spectrum: how else have they managed to get the support of both trade unionists, and David Cameron? The entire intention of the UAF is to oppose facism, which is something every rational person in the UK should support, whether they are Thatcherite or best mates with Bob Crowe.

That sounds close to the truth. Although I don't think the UAF leadership is militant, just that some of the UAF followers are (quite rightly) angered by facism, but (quite wrongly) let this spill over into violence on the streets.

Some members of the UAF are true Marxists, mosts are liberals and students or well meaning old dears who were hippies in their youth. Sure there are some nutjobs who have strange ideas tagging along - you can identify them easily as they cover their faces to avoid identification. IMO, the world becomes a very scary place whenever authoritarians come to power, whether they are left or right wing authoritians. As such the entire EDF (and the more extreme minorities within the UAF) should be resisted. I am well aware that extreme authoritarian government (whether left or right) cause countless deaths whenever they have come to power anywhere in the globe. This is why we need to rally together and oppose extremism wherever it occurs. The EDF (and the BNP) are entirely extremist and authoritarian, and need to be opposed one way or another. Ideally this should be by a centralist organisation of left and right, will all people united in objecting to the extremist EDF facism.

EDF - ultra right wing, ultra autharitarian, and throughly objectionable to anyone who cares about England. Aiming to introduce restrictive legislation to prevent indivduals enjoying the privacy of their own homes. Inheirently racist, homophobic, mysognist, in short, the EDF stand firmly against everything that makes England a proud fair democracy. UAF - on average slightly left of centre, mixed membership from young to old. Some members have engaged in violent activity, but the vast majority are civil and rebuke these extreme elements. Aim is to stop the progression of racism and authoritarianism wherever it is encountered. Currently subject to an attempted discrediting but the EDF, who are using viral media to suggest that the whole UAF is engaged in violent activity, and not just the tiny minoity that are.

Perhaps Pardew thought it best to replace loans, with er, some loans?

No offence, but a c**p manager will always be a c**p manager, whatever the league.

I wish! Getting paid a fortune to run the Saints... But then. I guess it's a bit of a poisioned chalice, what with some of the fanbase wanting to undermine your every effort. I haven't seen anyone say that Cortese is above criticism. If they have they are obviously wrong. I do think we should remember that Cortese holds the purse strings... we are in an excellent position in the grand scheme of things, without Cortese onboard we would probably find ourselves a lot worse off. I don't agree with either the £3 booking fee, nor with the lack of an installment plan, but I can see sensible business reasons behind both decisions, and annoying as they might seem, they don't provide evidence relating to either a problem behind the scenes, nor, (in the context of our 'finger pointing' discussion) to the reason behind Pardew's departure. All I'm saying is that everything that we have evidence for can be explained as sensible behaviour for a business, all the negative anti-Cortese rumour is unsubstantiated, and until there is evidence indicating that Cortese has made a mistake I think it is sensible to keep our powder dry. I don't know whether Cortese is making sensible or irrational decisions, but without more information I think it would be rash of us to jump to conclusions.

As there is so little information, why are people jumping to any assumptions either pro or anti Cortese? There is no new information, just that people have got over the initial shock, and are now posting with their heads rather than with their hearts.

So are you saying that somebody has actually suggested that Cortese is above criticism? If they have, they're wrong, if nobody has then you are creating a straw man to fight. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man?wasRedirected=true You don't think that we might be best waiting for some evidence before making criticism? I wish we could test these things with a placebo. In this league with this much money to spend what win ratio would a monkey with a typewriter acheive? What I mean is it's hard to lose with the resourses at our disposal. Pardew certainly wasn't exceptional, i'd warrent that Wigley could have got a win ratio upwards of 50%. Pardew was 'okay', he didn't excel or exceed expectations. Don't you think not calling either derogatory names might be a better solution?

stthrobber, why resort to using a fabricated straw man argument: nobody on here thinks Cortese is beyond criticism (many feel we don't yet have enough evidence to criticise, and some have rightly pointed out that Cortese is really the only link to the Leibherr family left, shouldn't we be a bit more cautious in pointing a finger?). However, I'm sure several other posters will wheel out the same straw dummy over the next few days. Oh, and BTW, you shoot yourself in the foot when you refer to Cortese as 'el Duce'... Just because the tabloids use such extreme and inaccurate analogies, why should we stoop to their level?

No, no, it simply wasn't. It was crude, crass, and appealed only to the lowest common demominator. It was also regularly racist, homophobic and almost always misogynist. Laughing at a white persons lips (or any other part of his/her body) which is a racially distincitive attribute, is without doubt equally unacceptable. IMO, it less acceptable when the 'comedian' is a member of a dominant social/racial group, and butt of the joke belongs to a less dominant group. You do realise that the term 'Bantu' refers to a liguistic family, and that it's former meaning of identifying black people is now considered unacceptable? The correct, and recongised term to use is 'black'. Arabs are most certainly not black. Afro-Arabs have genes of both Arab and Black origin, as a result their distinguishing features are often a mixture of the two racial groups. You can slate the term 'PC' all you want, IMO it should be rebranded as 'basic common decency'.

Hoddle is neither as bad, nor as good as some on this thread make out. He's an excellent tactician, making good team selection choices, and better substitutions to change games. However, he seems to be awful at various other aspects of management, namely: media handling, team moral, training, and selecting players to purchase. In this respect he is like the antithesis of Strachan, who couldn't pick a team of players, and couldn't make clever substitutions, but ticked the training, moral, and media boxes. If only you could combine the two, have Hoddle making team selections and subs, and Strachan doing everything else. Then forbid Hoddle from either talking to the team or talking to the media. Sounds like a perfect marriage, err... I'm not sure where I'm going with this one... Anyhow, sorry Dalek, Hoddle doesn't fit the bill entirely, I guess there are worse choices (Adams, Hart, Pearce etc), but Hoddle isn't exactly an ideal candidate...

There are very few managers who I would consider. I can't think of many of the UK based manager who would fit the bill, and the few exceptions seem ridiculously out of reach (e.g. O'Neill). Perhaps we can expect an overseas manager. There are several top-class overseas managers who might do well over here. How would we feel if we appointed someone like: Daniel Passarella? Lippi? Donadoni? Lucien Favre? Otto Rehhagel? Matthias Sammer?

Liquid, I'm not far behind you. I've been very pro-Cortese, but this last episode has shattered my faith somewhat. I'm still, just, the other side of the fence though: only because I can still see plausible explainations that are perfectly rational. If a top manager is suddenly unveiled by Cortese, almost all of the fans will be back on-side... if a fairly useless manager like Hart is appointed, and no further explaination for events is provided, I'll swap sides too, and be calling for his resignation. Last chance Nicola.

I do hope you're right Alpine. I have to say, as someone who has backed Cortese over the last few months, I am a little shaken by Pardew's departure. Not that he was sacked, just with the timing of the sacking. I can still see several perfectly logical explainations for events, but if the next appointment isn't top notch, (or at very least Cortese revealling that the departure was caused by Pardew), then I'm afraid Cortese will have lost my support. I feel this is do or die for Cortese now, if he doesn't have a trump card up his sleeve, then the fans will probably turn against him. BTW, Alpine, sorry for slating you a month ago, your posts on this subject have been spot on IMO (although I reserve the right not to agree with you on other subjects, it's usually far too depressing...)

Yup, but at least now we are seeing some of the counter-argument, you know, from posters who have reflected upon the situation, and can see that their might be method in the madness. If the next appointment is anything but an obvious step forward Cortese will lose the fans. Until the appointment is made it seems rather rash for fans to be jumping to conclusions. Obviously, I agree that this thread will decend into another slanging match, but at least that beats the one-sided anti-Cortese threads that we've seen the last couple of days.

Finally, someone starting a sensible Cortese post, thank you Benjii. This is the first time I have posted since Alan's departure. Like others, I was shocked, and confused by events, but when I logged on to here, people were pinning all the blame on Cortese. My first assumption had been that Pardew must have done something wrong, either in conduct or perhaps in approaching another team. Having said that I was always luke-warm to Pardew - he did okay, but only just okay. As such, I was considering him as 'sackable' if a better candidate were avaliable. I'm not prepared (as most on here seem to be) to direct anger at Cortese. So far we still don't know what has gone on. When we appoint the next manager we will have a better idea of what has happened. If they are worse than (or with a smaller reputation) than Pardew, then I will reluctantly come to accept that Cortese has lost control. However, if, as I suspect, the next manager turns out to be a coup, Cortese's decision will make a lot of sense. The entire direction of Saints will be determined by the next appointment, until it is made it is rather strange to direct anger at anyone.

Accept that the older generation vote for the forces of darkness in some form of sick revenge against the youth of today, safe in the knowledge that they will probably be dead before the inevitable catastrophe of self-greed and corruption impacts the country?