UpTheLatics

We should also say that Pete Wild deserves a medal for his last few week. League form was decent - won three, drawn one, lost 2 - with 10 points from 18 (MK performance deserved at lesast a point) and, of course, the memorable victory over Fulham. He's at least kept us in the play-offs and improved the goal difference by 6 and landed us a few quid in the FA Cup. Let's hope, with all the fanfare with Scholes, he isn't forgotten come the end of the season. Huge contribution.

It is. "Right lads, 16 games and I want us in those play-offs. Got it?" Christ - some of our lads would have a pressure-induced seizure.

Small cock, though. Can't have it all.

A consistent few hundred idiots ruin this fixture making it one of the least enjoyable away fixtures we have. There again, the home fixture was our best league peformance of the season so owt similar would be spot on.

Believe me, marra, I'm not expecting that. The consensus of this board's opinion still seems to consider us gatecrashing that top 7 to be realistic. What I've quoted, barring one run of form, is unlikely to happen. I think it would be unfair to expect it.

Excellent. His challenge: Average points total of 7th placed team in the last five seasons is 72.4 (two of the five years was 75). If we win tomorrow, he'll need to achieve 1.88 points per game. If we lose, we'd need over two points per game. If we go with us winning tomorrow, he'll need to win at least half his games to have a chance.

Sad news. Jim was an excellent journalist and from an era of journalism when local newspapers reached most households. I studied journalism at university and completed my dissertation of the representation of the two main groups of people leading up to, during and after the race riots. My conclusion was that the Chron had a bias under his editorship (institutional, mind you; it was traceable before Jim was appointed). My opinion, of course. Nor was it comment on Jim as a person. Lots of newspapers, as we know, had - and still have - a bias towards groups of people. I don't believe this is true. Intrigue has existed since the invention of the printing press. George Orwell wrote some excellent stuff about local newspapers, niche newspapers etc. The problem, aided by the invention of the internet, that could serve as the unique source of all information (Orwell incidentally predicted something along the lines of an electronic enclycopedia), is that we no longer believe we should pay for news content. I'm under 30 and still buy newspapers, but that's rare. The Guardian are building a base who is willing to purchase its content voluntarily; the Times, however, have used a paywall for some years now and last I heard had in excess of 100,000 subscribers. The harsh reality is that local newspapers, who have to transition to the online world, will die because we just won't pay for it. The days of proper write-ups following council meetings seem lost. Personally, I believe communities need to fund local journalism otherwise the notion of holding local politicians etc to account will go forever, and that is, well, bad news. It's a sad comment on the lack of engagement in pretty much anything that isn't a meme or some petty thing on Facebook by certain ages. Having said that, there is evidence to suggest the current 18-24 age demographic is reversing that engagement decline. Fingers crossed.

Brilliant that David. I'll be ordering one.

I'll join. I do enough ranting and raving from the sideline...

Underdog - how do I join the Trust?

Thinking the same. These are as bad as when they were relegated from L1 2005/06. Rather predictably, they beat us 2-1 at home that season.

Run your mouth when you're performing above all others, lad.

I love how you state the obvious with such a sense of discovery.

This lot are as thick as mince. I saw a bunch chase after the coppers only to be caned.

Sunday morning and the realisation is we're back to a league campaign that is going to fizzle out because the lads can't find anywhere near the sort of consistency to put together a good run of results. I'm not happy with Jose Baxter talking to the press about the sort of stuff that needs to be said in private, but there again he is correct in his assessment. I thought we deserved a draw and we'll be bitter about that penalty for some time to come, but - and I hesitate to criticise because we've beaten Fulham and we pushed a very good Doncaster side to the very end - there were too many well off the boil; we were too soft in the centre and unfortunately Sylla has to be identified as crucial to Donny's ability to cut through us, nor did it help that he thought knocking the ball forward to the smallest lad on the field was sensible. To get the equaliser is another good memory. Lastly - Donny had a few decent boozers, particular Tut and Shive which had some lovely drink on. I happened to witness one of the many bust-ups about the town too. It involved about 20 young crackerjacks - the sort you'd cherish meeting after watching the lads lose to a harsh last-minute penalty - from each side pathetically and limply clashing in the town centre at about two-ish only to get clattered by a fired-up local police force. Idiots.

Continued decline. The danger now is the unpredictability because we're ran, in my view, by a charlatan with, to his credit, fair intentions. There again, is this the inevitability? We couldn't hang on much longer in League One and as such I don't lay the relegation squarely at the door of Lemsagam,

.

Summat about these last three posts made me really laugh.

That is what I'm saying. If Scholes is willing to take on the role providing Lemsagam ceases to interfere then it must be so. As has been said, Scholes is not tied to the club because of any financial reasoning and will resign if Lemsagam does not keep to any commitment, if made, about freedom to manage.

My concern is the supposed conditions laid out by Scholes. It is time Lemsagam transitions from agent to football club owner and backs away from the playing side. It is clear that his style of operation has been a problem in the last year.

A joke is not a joke if it needs explaining brother.

The Sun, though despicable In many ways, is seldom wrong on football matters. I've yet to see summat in the football pages that didn't later turn out to be true or occur. It's usually spot on. I've never gone to Twitter to see what our lot conjure up with a character limit (this forum is quite enough!), but I can only imagine there is only a handful with such a stupid take on this. They must be the troll-under-the-bridge element that all clubs must suffer with.

Aye, but it's hardly a coup in some respects considering Scholes has lobbed in enough applications. As I say, let's see what happens. He may convince me.

Maybe marra. If he does appoint Scholes, I'll lay off. It could be summat interesting.

Over 700 appearances for a dominant Manchester Utd; immense ability; likeable; local. If it goes tits up, then so be it. We've tried everything else over the years. I really cannot see, considering the obvious dearth of alternatives, why anybody would criticise Scholes being appointed. That said, he has to work with that prat running the club.