rynny

I am delighted he left as well, to be honest. 

Fulham didn't beat us that season either

I feel a poll coming on.
I thought you were good btw and the best summariser was Gary Rowett going back many years. 

@angieram climbed over the netting into the home end with her nunchucks. They soon backed off.  

Fulham didn't beat us that season either

There isn’t a day that goes by that I don’t think about Bloomers. 
Shrewsbury wore T-shirts with his, and another supporters’ name on, when they celebrated that promotion.
Fantastic broadcaster, wonderful bloke. I miss him. 

I believe @DarkFruitsRam7 has a similar problem whenever he goes to Sheffield!

No was just scrolling through the responses seeing as you did post the Twitter article in the first place. 
Weird thing to advise me not to look at an article you posted to start this thread. 

1997, Old Trafford, Man Utd. Wanchope and Poom's (often forgotten) debut. My first away game as an 11 year old. It is definitely a game I will never forget.

1997, Old Trafford, Man Utd. Wanchope and Poom's (often forgotten) debut. My first away game as an 11 year old. It is definitely a game I will never forget.

Its just a shame he's gonna get subbed after 30 mins for the next 6 weeks as the other players mess with his kit each week 😛
 

We need to be bashing the Bishop more.

That assumes that what Sam Rush was allegedly doing was straight forward and easy to pick up on. Maybe it was quite intricate and difficult to unravel and Pearce was the one who uncovered the alleged offences?
Playing devil's advocate, what if Pearce reigned Mel in? What if things would have been a lot worse if Pearce wasn't here and Mel had plans to spend even more money and try to exploit even more perceived loop holes and Pearce stopped him? 
Pearce may have signed an NDA and can't mention anything at all. Another reason is that Mel may still be a friend and he doesn't want to throw his friend under the bus, anymore than has already happened. Or it could simply be that he wants to draw a line under what could be the worst period in his life and move forward, and not have to defend himself constantly? There is more than your 2 perceived reasonings.

That assumes that what Sam Rush was allegedly doing was straight forward and easy to pick up on. Maybe it was quite intricate and difficult to unravel and Pearce was the one who uncovered the alleged offences?
Playing devil's advocate, what if Pearce reigned Mel in? What if things would have been a lot worse if Pearce wasn't here and Mel had plans to spend even more money and try to exploit even more perceived loop holes and Pearce stopped him? 
Pearce may have signed an NDA and can't mention anything at all. Another reason is that Mel may still be a friend and he doesn't want to throw his friend under the bus, anymore than has already happened. Or it could simply be that he wants to draw a line under what could be the worst period in his life and move forward, and not have to defend himself constantly? There is more than your 2 perceived reasonings.

If it happened earlier, say just before covid, then it it would have been worse, we would have struggled to attract anyone other than even more charlatans than what we did.

Because in this day and age apologising equals guilt and nothing will appease some people other than his sacking and subsequent ostracization.
He made an effort to come to the Fans Forum (he didn't have to) and asked us to judge him on his actions going forwards.  What he may or may not have done in the past, David Clowes probably knows a lot more than us and he's happy for him to remain.  Anything else is just fans with nothing else better to do arguing amongst themselves. 

Well for all our sakes I hope everyone at the club is working hard to get us to where we want to be, and as a supporter our job should be to encourage this in a positive manner and not just be negative about the past, but that’s just my opinion.🙂

We could not be here, administration could have happened before it actually did.

That assumes that what Sam Rush was allegedly doing was straight forward and easy to pick up on. Maybe it was quite intricate and difficult to unravel and Pearce was the one who uncovered the alleged offences?
Playing devil's advocate, what if Pearce reigned Mel in? What if things would have been a lot worse if Pearce wasn't here and Mel had plans to spend even more money and try to exploit even more perceived loop holes and Pearce stopped him? 
Pearce may have signed an NDA and can't mention anything at all. Another reason is that Mel may still be a friend and he doesn't want to throw his friend under the bus, anymore than has already happened. Or it could simply be that he wants to draw a line under what could be the worst period in his life and move forward, and not have to defend himself constantly? There is more than your 2 perceived reasonings.

We could not be here, administration could have happened before it actually did.

We could not be here, administration could have happened before it actually did.