Search results

"Pretty sure" isn't a proven fact though, is it? :) Anyone who has watched Gael in the first team will know that he lacks the decision making and composure at this level to score goals or play through-balls consistently. He doesn't look like an attacking midfielder, and from pre-season onwards...

I'm sorry, I didn't realise you had to have scientific proof before spouting an opinion on a forum thesedays. My bad.

No, he isn't-realistically, we should simply get Ancelotti or Hiddink in and give them 15-20m to get out us of trouble. That'd show everyone how useless and fat Thorn is, eh?!? :wave:

So you resort to bully-boy tactics due to a bizarre conspiracy theory that Thorn is part of the whole SISU scheme? Pathetic. Vent in his direction in public and rest assured, you'll have a fair few of us shouting you down. Good look with shouting THORN OUT when any protest will get taken over by...

It's good to know that satire is alive and well and living in Coventry.

Very clear to you, maybe. I beg to differ. I think we would be worse off under Reid, Adams etc. But of course, we can't ever know, can we?

It's the same with Palace and Watford: most of their youngsters are a few years older than ours and with plenty of experience. For us, 4 players are playing their first seasons as first choice in the Football League and had under 10 appearances before this season. 2 hadn't made their league...

Or Danny Fox, Scott Dann, Kieron Westwood, Aron Gunnarson, Jordan Henderson, Richard Keogh, Lukas Jutkiewicz, Leon Best, Andy Carroll, Chris Hussey's.... Don't say Platt, Eastwood, McSheffrey or O'Donovan back, they were blatantly managers signings.

it's 'cos they had money to spend and decent squads!!!!

Not ignored by me, I quote you every single time and tell you why it's a crap analogy! Yet you keep doing it...

People would have got on Adams, Dowie or Coleman's backs a lot more as they had a lot more money to spend and the remit was different. We were never favourites for relegation under them like we were this season and we punched our weight in the transfer market. We now pack no punch whatsoever...

I think they do want to change the manager as it's the only change that is likely.

And how many not gained are the managers fault? You'll say many more than me, as it's opinion based. Stalemate again. Maybe, one day, I'll agree with you on something Otis! Unlikely, though.

It's a top ground, but if we can't afford it now, how will we afford it when we're in L1..or even L2? If it's too big for us now, just how small do we need to get before it's the most incongruous pairing of club and ground in football history (hmm, aside from Queens Park at Hampden, maybe). Ah...

You are blaming AT for Jacks mistake now! :claping hands:

So any points we gain, he's not responsible for them? :facepalm:

So you don't think in any way whatsoever that people what the board to sack the manager because it's the only change we can make? You are contradicting yourself if so.

Oh, and Ranson appointed Thorn as Caretaker Manager. Don't try to claim any credit for the board when it was AT's work on the training ground that saved our season. The off field turmoil continued.

The CT reported that the Football League-including our board-had voted to outlaw it from next season.

Entirely proving my point: we want to change the manager because we can't change the owners.