Russell Martin

[notnowcato]

13 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said:

Just wondering how long the Martin apologists will keep their head in the sand when we only achieve the pathetic points total we are on course for and what excuses they will trumpet on here to justify it ?

Pathetic 1/10. 

[6ft8saint]

3 minutes ago, notnowcato said:

Pathetic 1/10. 

By responding like that is what the author was looking for. Rise above it

[notnowcato]

17 minutes ago, 6ft8saint said:

By responding like that is what the author was looking for. Rise above it

Rise above it… easy for you to say

[Holmes_and_Watson]

1 hour ago, Lighthouse said:

He doesn't though, it's people on this forum who are always trotting out possession stats, not him.

I was using that as shorthand for his post match comments on controlling the game and how much of the ball we had. If you extend that into comments on not taking advantage of a few created chances, that also wouldn't go down well. Basically, any of the reasons he's given in our press conferences would not impress.

[Miltonaggro]

3 hours ago, notnowcato said:

Underachieved? Really?!  
Fuck me, we really don’t need to go there again, Shirley. 

Yes really, that's a perception held by a good many apparently!

No, we don't need to go there again, but it's clearly the thought that counts. 

[Miltonaggro]

3 hours ago, Badger said:

Norwich, his spiritual home. Said he wanted to go back there one day. 

Could see that Badger.

[Osvaldorama]

Shit players 

Shit Manager

Shit owners 

Shit

[tdmickey3]

10 hours ago, notnowcato said:

Pathetic 1/10. 

We consider the deluded support as pathetic

[sadoldgit]

17 hours ago, Miltonaggro said:

I genuinely think Championship teams would also think twice.  He's consecutively underachieved in two divisions at a relatively large club with relatively substantial resources, and the CV has very little success as player or coach.  Could see him back at a club like MK Dons, possibly low end Championship on a substantial pay cut once the inevitable SFC severance pay runs out.    

Whatever you think of Martin and his tactics, I don’t think you can say that someone getting a club promoted to the EPL has underachieved. When he joined us his brief was to get us promoted and he achieved that.

[Colinjb]

5 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Whatever you think of Martin and his tactics, I don’t think you can say that someone getting a club promoted to the EPL has underachieved. When he joined us his brief was to get us promoted and he achieved that.

Considering the promotion was achieved due to him compromising his system in the play-offs, it makes you wonder how we could have done with someone more tactically flexible.

[Oldandtired]

14 hours ago, notnowcato said:

Pathetic 1/10. 

Only in your head, which as your posts keep on proving is a very strange place indeed.

[East Kent Saint]

14 hours ago, Saint in Paradise said:

Quite frankly I wouldn't even wish RM  on Portsmouth.

I think I would , just to see how long he lasted 😄

[pingpong]

Don't understand the drama, he has over achieved in getting us up a year earlier than planned, and we're on course for our target total for this season.  

You can't finish bottom with 13 points and win loads of games, not sure what people expect, losing week after week is a part of this season, as expected.

[notnowcato]

1 hour ago, Colinjb said:

Considering the promotion was achieved due to him compromising his system in the play-offs, it makes you wonder how we could have done with someone more tactically flexible.

So on the basis of 3 games, you're willing to bet the previous 46 would've been better.  Ok.  

[Osvaldorama]

51 minutes ago, notnowcato said:

So on the basis of 3 games, you're willing to bet the previous 46 would've been better.  Ok.  

Definitely.  His tactics and decisions cost us last season too. 

Very comfortable to say he didn’t get the absolute best out of the squad last season, either. 

[coalman]

2 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

Whatever you think of Martin and his tactics, I don’t think you can say that someone getting a club promoted to the EPL has underachieved. When he joined us his brief was to get us promoted and he achieved that.

For all I loved some of our play last season I would hope Martin's brief went slightly beyond getting us promoted. 

When he joined we'd just been relegated, our confidence was shot to pieces and we had lots of players that didn't fit in.

2 years on it's likely that we'll just have been relegated, our confidence shot to pieces and even more players we can't move on.

 

[Colinjb]

1 hour ago, notnowcato said:

So on the basis of 3 games, you're willing to bet the previous 46 would've been better.  Ok.  

On the basis of having seen 4 games where he adapted to his circumstances (including Leeds, last game of the season in this) and comparing them to the previous 45 league games where he hoped the circumstances adapted to him; Yes, I would make that bet.

Edited November 19 by Colinjb

[Lighthouse]

20 minutes ago, Colinjb said:

On the basis of having seen 4 games where he adapted to his circumstances (including Leeds, last game of the season in this) and comparing them to the previous 45 league games where he hoped the circumstances adapted to him; Yes, I would make that bet.

What on Earth are you talking about?

[Colinjb]

3 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

What on Earth are you talking about?

Losing Bazunu forced Martin into changing his defensive set-up with McCarthy back in the side. No mistake that this saw us look a lot better.

Naturally, him seeing a benefit from being flexible caused him to double down on his original Dogma. Bravo to him.

Edited November 19 by Colinjb

[Wade Garrett]

4 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

Whatever you think of Martin and his tactics, I don’t think you can say that someone getting a club promoted to the EPL has underachieved. When he joined us his brief was to get us promoted and he achieved that.

I agree.

 

[sadoldgit]

2 hours ago, coalman said:

For all I loved some of our play last season I would hope Martin's brief went slightly beyond getting us promoted. 

When he joined we'd just been relegated, our confidence was shot to pieces and we had lots of players that didn't fit in.

2 years on it's likely that we'll just have been relegated, our confidence shot to pieces and even more players we can't move on.

 

I am sure it does, but I was referring to what he has achieved so far.

[tdmickey3]

3 hours ago, notnowcato said:

So on the basis of 3 games, you're willing to bet the previous 46 would've been better.  Ok.  

Yep, you are grasping it at long last

[Whitey Grandad]

2 hours ago, coalman said:

For all I loved some of our play last season I would hope Martin's brief went slightly beyond getting us promoted. 

When he joined we'd just been relegated, our confidence was shot to pieces and we had lots of players that didn't fit in.

2 years on it's likely that we'll just have been relegated, our confidence shot to pieces and even more players we can't move on.

 

So after two years we shall be in a worse position than when he joined?

[coalman]

3 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

So after two years we shall be in a worse position than when he joined?

That's where we're headed.

[Maggie May]

We’re only a point behind where Adkins was at this stage of the season. I don’t remember many calling for his head then.

 

[Lighthouse]

2 hours ago, Colinjb said:

Losing Bazunu forced Martin into changing his defensive set-up with McCarthy back in the side. No mistake that this saw us look a lot better.

Naturally, him seeing a benefit from being flexible caused him to double down on his original Dogma. Bravo to him.

None of that makes any sense. Bazunu got injured in the warm up against Preston, which was something of a walkover. That was followed by three defeats, following which he brought in an extra defender and we found some form again. He adapted his tactics to suit the change in circumstances and it worked.

I’ve no idea what you’re going on about with ‘dogma’ and the first 45 games should have been better because of something.

[bugenhagen]

10 minutes ago, coalman said:

That's where we're headed.

I agree, that is our current trajectory, but Martin will be gone by then. If he keeps on losing games, he will end up losing the players/dressing room, and shortly after, his job.

[gio1saints]

9 hours ago, tdmickey3 said:

We consider the deluded support as pathetic

I used to work as the Leader of a public facing organisation. I was the ultimate go to person for complaints. One of the most oft heard tropes of complaining was when the complainer switched the issue from being a personal matter to them to being a matter that “many” are upset about. This was often because the original complainer felt that they needed further numbers to back up the complaint. The more the better and the more likely to get a result . The big clue is when the complainer start to move away from the “I” to the plural “ WE”. The idea being this gives more authority and validity to the complaint or issue. Conversely it also indicated to me the paucity of the original complainers issue- the sooner I heard the “ we” the more I knew the issue was more personal than a class suit for example. 
In Saints case we have c 30,000 at each home game and countless hundreds of thousands around the world. When using the term “ we” it’s important to note that the original complainer has not got a little mini clubhouse of his own at which they debate proposals such as these but rather that the OPhas made a quantum leap in suggesting that anyone who does not agree with him must be a “ deluded supporter” and “ pathetic” because The WE can mean him and three mates a hundred mates but it certainly does not represent the Saints diaspora. Indeed to even imply one speaks for the diaspora probably qualifies as pathetic and deluded more than the original point. The poster in question may well be correct in his criticism - but to use the “ we” when the last home match the Northam was full behind RM suggests he’s taken rather a leap and got overexcited in his trash talk. And I thought I was the one best known for getting a bit ott at times, this poster seems to spend most or all his time in posts attacking saints in one shape or form. Perhaps he should co side wether he is at the right club it offends him so much? 

[notnowcato]

3 hours ago, Colinjb said:

Losing Bazunu forced Martin into changing his defensive set-up with McCarthy back in the side. No mistake that this saw us look a lot better.

Naturally, him seeing a benefit from being flexible caused him to double down on his original Dogma. Bravo to him.

Yeah, we were awesome away to Cardiff and Leicester and home to Stoke following Bazunu's injury - no mistake.

Edited November 19 by notnowcato

[gio1saints]

4 hours ago, notnowcato said:

So on the basis of 3 games, you're willing to bet the previous 46 would've been better.  Ok.  

Another classic non sequitor for you to look at and sigh….

We did well last three matches last season. If we played same way the 43 before we’d have also done better…..and yet that 3 match style has not set the EPL on fire for us has it? You couldn’t make it up. It ain’t necessarily so as they say ~ but at this stage of the pitchfork wielding party pointing out the inconsistency and illogical nature of some of the posts here gets you nothing but a target on your own back also. 

[Lee On Solent Saint]

44 minutes ago, gio1saints said:

when the last home match the Northam was full behind RM

Lets see how that pans out if we keep losing games. Also I resent the fact that you seem to think that the Northam End speaks for the majority of the crowd. It may shock you to learn, but there are other areas of St Marys that are useed by fans. 

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, gio1saints said:

I used to work as the Leader of a public facing organisation. 

NFL cheerleaders?

[Colinjb]

1 hour ago, notnowcato said:

Yeah, we were awesome away to Cardiff and Leicester and home to Stoke following Bazunu's injury - no mistake.

Which is why it was an absolute mercy that he did change how we played ahead of our last game of the season, don't you think? 

[Colinjb]

2 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

None of that makes any sense. Bazunu got injured in the warm up against Preston, which was something of a walkover. That was followed by three defeats, following which he brought in an extra defender and we found some form again. He adapted his tactics to suit the change in circumstances and it worked.

This is exactly my point. 

If only he would bloody do it now!

[pimpin4rizeal]

The reason his tactics are so flawed is it’s better especially when you don’t have the best players in the league to break fast when the other team doesn’t have time to set up and organise the defence .. he does the opposite gives them  all the time in the world to set up whilst we fanny around in our own half to make our possession stats look pretty ..

then to top it off demands we play dangerously out from the back .. if the other team press well or we misplace a pass it results in a goal.

the whole approach is mad for a team who buys the cheapest players in the league..even Brighton and Bournemouth now have huge record signings in comparison ..  why the board seem absolutely blinded to all this is mad .. Martin  achieved about par last season getting 4th with one of the best squads in the league now he doesn’t have that he loses every game and isn’t willing to change ..

this is our whole situation. In a nutshell and the longer the board let this lunatic lose more games no decent manager is gonna want to take a certain relegation .. why can’t the board see this ?

Edited November 19 by pimpin4rizeal

[Badger]

4 hours ago, Maggie May said:

We’re only a point behind where Adkins was at this stage of the season. I don’t remember many calling for his head then.

 

I had to look it up, but found that by Nov 17th 2012 we actually had 8pts ( Win v Villa, and draws v Fulham and Swansea, before winning at QPR).

What was the difference between then and now ? The win v Villa was convincing, Adkins had earnt the trust of supporters with two promotions, and he wanted, and often had, the team playing with flair. 

Quite easy to understand why people were supportive of him. 

[Colinjb]

5 minutes ago, Badger said:

I had to look it up, but found that by Nov 17th 2012 we actually had 8pts ( Win v Villa, and draws v Fulham and Swansea, before winning at QPR).

What was the difference between then and now ? The win v Villa was convincing, Adkins had earnt the trust of supporters with two promotions, and he wanted, and often had, the team playing with flair. 

Quite easy to understand why people were supportive of him. 

Memories of him changing players for certain games so they could play a different way depending on the opposition. (Dropping Richardson for Butterfield v 'Boro in 2011, knowing he would deliver better crosses from deep, finding Guly for the opener is one of my favourites.)

Such managerial finesse is not in Martin's make-up.

[The Kraken]

3 hours ago, gio1saints said:

Another classic non sequitor for you to look at and sigh….

We did well last three matches last season. If we played same way the 43 before we’d have also done better…..and yet that 3 match style has not set the EPL on fire for us has it? You couldn’t make it up. It ain’t necessarily so as they say ~ but at this stage of the pitchfork wielding party pointing out the inconsistency and illogical nature of some of the posts here gets you nothing but a target on your own back also. 

One day you’ll stop savouring your own farts enough to take in what most others are actually saying, rather than giving your own distorted narrative of what you’d like it to be. Given your numerous drunken outbursts on here over the last months I’m not surprised your opinion goes all over the place.

As for the final 3 match thing. It’s not as if we changed our style all that much for the last 3 games of the season. We got slightly more attritional but still played RussBall, just lessened on the goalkeeper contribution to it. We scored a goal right from the back in the playoff final, so not exactly a huge change in emphasis.

Pretty much every Saints fan I know said that, if we play like we did last year in the premier league, we’ll get thrashed. Lo and behold. It’s one thing going down, it’s another thing being an open ship and expecting to come second every weekend. 

[Badger]

43 minutes ago, pimpin4rizeal said:

 

this is our whole situation. In a nutshell and the longer the board let this lunatic lose more games no decent manager is gonna want to take a certain relegation .. why can’t the board see this ?

They probably realise having asked around that no other bastard will touch the job. 
 

If the board want to know why, they should take a look in the mirror. Clearly Mr Football , Kraft and Dyson-Man don’t cut it in football circles as they think they do. 
 

Just wish someone would tell Dragan. 

[benjii]

10 hours ago, Colinjb said:

Considering the promotion was achieved due to him compromising his system in the play-offs, it makes you wonder how we could have done with someone more tactically flexible.

Not this shite again. Watch our goal.

[Colinjb]

38 minutes ago, benjii said:

Not this shite again. Watch our goal.

If you mean the play-off final goal, yes it was nice.

But, the idea that Martin is some kind of visionary, implementing something revolutionary is idiotic. Ideas he preaches have been previously done, by better managers who did not stick horrifyingly to one plan in the face of clear evidence that it is not going to work, they used them as part of their arsenal, not the whole focus. 

I had the pleasure of having chance to read for recreation a little recently, which given how busy I am was a rare treat. The book was 'Football Against the Enemy.' 

The chapter, 'Rulers of the Ukraine' highlights the methods of a coach called Zelentsov, he runs through the necessity to anticipate passes before they happen, requiring the Dynamo Kiev squad to be almost constantly circulating the ball. How very familiar. He also preached the use of statistical metrics and computer analysis to truly judge player performance against their desired requirements. Very Ankersen. 

This book was written in the early nineties, the coach mentioned in the above was at his best in the 1980's. Martin's approach is not a revolution, it is just extreme. 

Further to this, critically, Zelentsov recognised something.

"A team that commits errors in no more then 15 - 18% of their acts is unbeatable."

Martin's set up forces our players into errors. He shows no desire in changing his tactics to mitigate this. 

He is a fraud. And truly meets the definition of insanity in trying the same things over and over again hoping for something different to occur. 

The real horror. He did adapt..... once..... As stated above, after trying to make square pegs fit round holes after Bazunu's injury, and. it. worked. But he did not learn from this. 

So, the conclusion can only be that he is an idiot. An arrogant idiot, too full of his own brilliance to adapt to his situation and learn from past experience. An idiot dressing up other people's ideas as his own and more then happy to try and peddle his snake oil to anyone who will listen, people who would rather be seen to think 'differently,' then practically. It angers me that this superficial one-track preening hipster of a manager is still in charge.

Rant over. No doubt which side of the fence i'm on as if you couldn't guess already.

 

Edited November 19 by Colinjb

[notnowcato]

1 hour ago, Colinjb said:

If you mean the play-off final goal, yes it was nice.

But, the idea that Martin is some kind of visionary, implementing something revolutionary is idiotic. Ideas he preaches have been previously done, by better managers who did not stick horrifyingly to one plan in the face of clear evidence that it is not going to work, they used them as part of their arsenal, not the whole focus. 

I had the pleasure of having chance to read for recreation a little recently, which given how busy I am was a rare treat. The book was 'Football Against the Enemy.' 

The chapter, 'Rulers of the Ukraine' highlights the methods of a coach called Zelentsov, he runs through the necessity to anticipate passes before they happen, requiring the Dynamo Kiev squad to be almost constantly circulating the ball. How very familiar. He also preached the use of statistical metrics and computer analysis to truly judge player performance against their desired requirements. Very Ankersen. 

This book was written in the early nineties, the coach mentioned in the above was at his best in the 1980's. Martin's approach is not a revolution, it is just extreme. 

Further to this, critically, Zelentsov recognised something.

"A team that commits errors in no more then 15 - 18% of their acts is unbeatable."

Martin's set up forces our players into errors. He shows no desire in changing his tactics to mitigate this. 

He is a fraud. And truly meets the definition of insanity in trying the same things over and over again hoping for something different to occur. 

The real horror. He did adapt..... once..... As stated above, after trying to make square pegs fit round holes after Bazunu's injury, and. it. worked. But he did not learn from this. 

So, the conclusion can only be that he is an idiot. An arrogant idiot, too full of his own brilliance to adapt to his situation and learn from past experience. An idiot dressing up other people's ideas as his own and more then happy to try and peddle his snake oil to anyone who will listen, people who would rather be seen to think 'differently,' then practically. It angers me that this superficial one-track preening hipster of a manager is still in charge.

Rant over. No doubt which side of the fence i'm on as if you couldn't guess already.

 

Hilarious. Who is calling our football revolutionary or Martin a visionary?? Your rant is based upon something no one has said, ever. On stats that you can’t prove or disprove against your subjective opinion.
 

Sounds like you’ve been working too hard. 

[Colinjb]

21 minutes ago, notnowcato said:

Hilarious..... your subjective opinion.
 

Sounds like you’ve been working too hard. 

Football is all about opinions. By all means share your own and your reasoning for it, but no need at all to be so directly rude, it demeans you. 

[Farmer Saint]

7 hours ago, Badger said:

I had to look it up, but found that by Nov 17th 2012 we actually had 8pts ( Win v Villa, and draws v Fulham and Swansea, before winning at QPR).

What was the difference between then and now ? The win v Villa was convincing, Adkins had earnt the trust of supporters with two promotions, and he wanted, and often had, the team playing with flair. 

Quite easy to understand why people were supportive of him. 

He also had much, much better players at his disposal.

[Farmer Saint]

6 hours ago, Colinjb said:

If you mean the play-off final goal, yes it was nice.

But, the idea that Martin is some kind of visionary, implementing something revolutionary is idiotic. Ideas he preaches have been previously done, by better managers who did not stick horrifyingly to one plan in the face of clear evidence that it is not going to work, they used them as part of their arsenal, not the whole focus. 

I had the pleasure of having chance to read for recreation a little recently, which given how busy I am was a rare treat. The book was 'Football Against the Enemy.' 

The chapter, 'Rulers of the Ukraine' highlights the methods of a coach called Zelentsov, he runs through the necessity to anticipate passes before they happen, requiring the Dynamo Kiev squad to be almost constantly circulating the ball. How very familiar. He also preached the use of statistical metrics and computer analysis to truly judge player performance against their desired requirements. Very Ankersen. 

This book was written in the early nineties, the coach mentioned in the above was at his best in the 1980's. Martin's approach is not a revolution, it is just extreme. 

Further to this, critically, Zelentsov recognised something.

"A team that commits errors in no more then 15 - 18% of their acts is unbeatable."

Martin's set up forces our players into errors. He shows no desire in changing his tactics to mitigate this. 

He is a fraud. And truly meets the definition of insanity in trying the same things over and over again hoping for something different to occur. 

The real horror. He did adapt..... once..... As stated above, after trying to make square pegs fit round holes after Bazunu's injury, and. it. worked. But he did not learn from this. 

So, the conclusion can only be that he is an idiot. An arrogant idiot, too full of his own brilliance to adapt to his situation and learn from past experience. An idiot dressing up other people's ideas as his own and more then happy to try and peddle his snake oil to anyone who will listen, people who would rather be seen to think 'differently,' then practically. It angers me that this superficial one-track preening hipster of a manager is still in charge.

Rant over. No doubt which side of the fence i'm on as if you couldn't guess already.

 

I'm not sure who you're arguing against here - I don't think anyone thinks he's revolutionary or a visionary. In fact I think the overwhelming majority of people want him gone. It's just a case of who comes in to replace him, and that is more of an issue (and considering we made approaches after the Leicester game the board aren't unaware). No-one good is interested.

[Wade Garrett]

17 hours ago, gio1saints said:

I used to work as the Leader of a public facing organisation. I was the ultimate go to person for complaints. One of the most oft heard tropes of complaining was when the complainer switched the issue from being a personal matter to them to being a matter that “many” are upset about. This was often because the original complainer felt that they needed further numbers to back up the complaint. The more the better and the more likely to get a result . The big clue is when the complainer start to move away from the “I” to the plural “ WE”. The idea being this gives more authority and validity to the complaint or issue. Conversely it also indicated to me the paucity of the original complainers issue- the sooner I heard the “ we” the more I knew the issue was more personal than a class suit for example. 
In Saints case we have c 30,000 at each home game and countless hundreds of thousands around the world. When using the term “ we” it’s important to note that the original complainer has not got a little mini clubhouse of his own at which they debate proposals such as these but rather that the OPhas made a quantum leap in suggesting that anyone who does not agree with him must be a “ deluded supporter” and “ pathetic” because The WE can mean him and three mates a hundred mates but it certainly does not represent the Saints diaspora. Indeed to even imply one speaks for the diaspora probably qualifies as pathetic and deluded more than the original point. The poster in question may well be correct in his criticism - but to use the “ we” when the last home match the Northam was full behind RM suggests he’s taken rather a leap and got overexcited in his trash talk. And I thought I was the one best known for getting a bit ott at times, this poster seems to spend most or all his time in posts attacking saints in one shape or form. Perhaps he should co side wether he is at the right club it offends him so much? 

I see you’ve let all those stars on your MacDonalds uniform go to your head.

Stay humble.

Edited November 20 by Wade Garrett

[CB Fry]

13 hours ago, gio1saints said:

I used to work as the Leader of a public facing organisation. I was the ultimate go to person for complaints. One of the most oft heard tropes of complaining was when the complainer switched the issue from being a personal matter to them to being a matter that “many” are upset about. This was often because the original complainer felt that they needed further numbers to back up the complaint. The more the better and the more likely to get a result . The big clue is when the complainer start to move away from the “I” to the plural “ WE”. The idea being this gives more authority and validity to the complaint or issue. Conversely it also indicated to me the paucity of the original complainers issue- the sooner I heard the “ we” the more I knew the issue was more personal than a class suit for example. 
In Saints case we have c 30,000 at each home game and countless hundreds of thousands around the world. When using the term “ we” it’s important to note that the original complainer has not got a little mini clubhouse of his own at which they debate proposals such as these but rather that the OPhas made a quantum leap in suggesting that anyone who does not agree with him must be a “ deluded supporter” and “ pathetic” because The WE can mean him and three mates a hundred mates but it certainly does not represent the Saints diaspora. Indeed to even imply one speaks for the diaspora probably qualifies as pathetic and deluded more than the original point. The poster in question may well be correct in his criticism - but to use the “ we” when the last home match the Northam was full behind RM suggests he’s taken rather a leap and got overexcited in his trash talk. And I thought I was the one best known for getting a bit ott at times, this poster seems to spend most or all his time in posts attacking saints in one shape or form. Perhaps he should co side wether he is at the right club it offends him so much? 

WE all think you're a twat

Edited November 20 by CB Fry

[austsaint]

13 hours ago, gio1saints said:

I used to work as the Leader of a public facing organisation. I was the ultimate go to person for complaints. One of the most oft heard tropes of complaining was when the complainer switched the issue from being a personal matter to them to being a matter that “many” are upset about. This was often because the original complainer felt that they needed further numbers to back up the complaint. The more the better and the more likely to get a result . The big clue is when the complainer start to move away from the “I” to the plural “ WE”. The idea being this gives more authority and validity to the complaint or issue. Conversely it also indicated to me the paucity of the original complainers issue- the sooner I heard the “ we” the more I knew the issue was more personal than a class suit for example. 
In Saints case we have c 30,000 at each home game and countless hundreds of thousands around the world. When using the term “ we” it’s important to note that the original complainer has not got a little mini clubhouse of his own at which they debate proposals such as these but rather that the OPhas made a quantum leap in suggesting that anyone who does not agree with him must be a “ deluded supporter” and “ pathetic” because The WE can mean him and three mates a hundred mates but it certainly does not represent the Saints diaspora. Indeed to even imply one speaks for the diaspora probably qualifies as pathetic and deluded more than the original point. The poster in question may well be correct in his criticism - but to use the “ we” when the last home match the Northam was full behind RM suggests he’s taken rather a leap and got overexcited in his trash talk. And I thought I was the one best known for getting a bit ott at times, this poster seems to spend most or all his time in posts attacking saints in one shape or form. Perhaps he should co side wether he is at the right club it offends him so much? 

Gio, there’s some good material here which someone like Ricky Gervais might be interested in.   You never know, could be a fat wedge for you in prospect from Netflix royalties.  You’d never have to go back to that public facing organisation again.

[notnowcato]

7 hours ago, Colinjb said:

Football is all about opinions. By all means share your own and your reasoning for it, but no need at all to be so directly rude, it demeans you. 

I have shared my opinions previously, I don’t feel the need to repeat them ad nauseum. 
Gutted, I thought I was more indirectly rude, need to work on my subtlety. 

[notnowcato]

1 hour ago, CB Fry said:

WE all think you're a twat

I’m fairly certain this kind of post in the past would’ve resulted in a ban. Progress eh?!