eelpie

Go, man, go!

Mandick is the pits, but Lowe is at the bottom of the pit.

Play Skacel of course. He's costing us enough, and even sulking is much better than anything else we have at LB.

Their second goal was the result of going all out for the winner, ok, but surely the daw at 90 minutes was worth attempting to defend. For their first goal (from the OS): "a tame looking delivery deceives the backline and Greg Halford nods the ball past Davis as it sneaks in at the far post." F***ing useless defending again. I give up.

Who will replace Wotte?

GM warned us of many realities that we did not wish to know at the time. But Lowe's negativity, abysmal person-to-person, media skills but above all dreadful judgement dominated everything, and drove the 'Lowe Out' movement to its logical conclusion. Lowe is a loser and always will be .

Received wisdom on here was right about Pericard but was sh*te and wrong about the rest.

Norwich have much bigger gates than we do since Lowe returned. That's why we can't afford him but they can.

But will Wotte ever play Skacel? There seems to be a two way sulk going on.

So what was the point in signing the inexperienced (at this level) Zoltan?

.. we are the twelfth man, says Wotte. Well eleventh man actually, since a player gets sent off so often.

Perhaps Wide doesn't know Molyneaux has been suspended, lol.

So who will play at LB? It can't be the same as we started against Swansea. Not considering Rudi is madness. he is under contract, and even petulant is miles better at LB than anyone else we have. Poor management skill again is our ruin.

Yes, I was. I have no idea what Wilde's motives were.

You are probably near the mark there. What a waste of a season.

Molyneaux hasn't strengthened the squad. He is an inexperienced liability. Zoltan might be ok, but he too is very inexperienced at this level, and is an almighty risk if played during our seriously tough relegation dogfight. Gasmi, Forecast and Pulis are not first team standard. So how has that stengthened our squad? And what does their signings say for the standard of our heralded Academy which Lowe gambled on to be the mainstay of our squad this season? The one player signed since the season started that we have now who is a real plus is Saeijs. Meanwhile Dyer - who we really need right now - is on loan until the end of the season. '20 goal' John was disregarded completely. No wonder we are in the mess we are in. No, our squad is considerably weaker than it could have been and should be.

A lot of misinformation going on imo. I bet Lowe will grab what he can at the very last minute.

We can see the steam from London.

[quote=(not THE) You can't recall the player during the initial loan period but if you then extend that period you can recall them. Usually what happens is Club A loan the player to club B for a month (the minimum allowable term I believe) Club A cannot then recall the player within that month. If the clubs agree to extend the loan beyond a month then Club A can recall them at any time. I still don't understand why Lowe didn't stipulate a recall clause. If the loan was for part of the season it could have been included. If it has been extended it could have been included. Just like we have with other loan arrangements.

Quite right. Why sell Dyer when we can loan him out for nothing? (Especially when we need him here) Well thought through, Rupes.

Reports are that Skacel will sign before he leaves.

And you didn't help him? Obviously he wasn't a Saints supporter, lol.

From Wikepedia: Quisling, after Norwegian politician Vidkun Quisling, who assisted Nazi Germany to conquer his own country, is a term used to describe traitors and collaborators. It was most commonly used for fascist political parties and military and paramilitary forces in occupied Allied countries which collaborated with Axis occupiers in World War II, as well as for their members and other collaborators. The term was coined by the British newspaper The Times in its leader of 15 April 1940, entitled "Quislings everywhere." The editorial asserted: "To writers, the word Quisling is a gift from the gods. If they had been ordered to invent a new word for traitor... they could hardly have hit upon a more brilliant combination of letters. Actually it contrives to suggest something at once slippery and tortuous." The noun has survived; for a while during and after the War the back-formed verb "to quisle" (pronounced "quizzle") was used. One who was "quisling" was committing treason.[3] That Quisling's name should be applied to denote the whole phenomenon of collaborationism is probably due to the place of Norway on the list of countries occupied by the Third Reich.[citation needed] Unlike Poland, Norway was considered 'Aryan' in Hitlerian ideology, and unlike Denmark, it was further off, nearer Britain, and did not share a land border with any territory under German control. Thus, Norway was the first country where local, non-German, fascist parties took part in the conquest of their own country after the start of the war. The universality of the term in the English language may be due to the involvement of Britain in the battle for Norway so early on in the war. In contemporary usage, "Quisling" is synonymous with "traitor", and particularly applied to politicians who appear to favour the interests of other nations or cultures over their own. In American English, the term is less well known than the equivalent phrase "Benedict Arnold". Also, in Norwegian, when one removes the "q" and the "i" in "quisling" - the result is "(a) usling" which means "someone who is ignoble or iniquitous". This was used more or less humorously during WWII in Norway.[citation needed]

"..No, you won't find your husband in the hospitality suite today or ever, Mrs Armstrong."

It did actually get to the ground a good hour before kick off. But congratulations. Brilliantly organised. Brilliantly supported.