Well it probably would have made him return even faster!

Nixon says he's been watched (presumably by Rovers affiliated scouts) but thinks Mowbray isn't fully convinced.

Well at least it's probably not pretentious and acting like it's better than it actually is. Unlike Northchoke.

Parties aren't my scene but at least I know that and stay away from them. Especially if full of drunk people and I'm a little old to be playing pass the parcel.

OK I generally avoid Lower Darwen as well is that accurate enough? As for the London remark made an error there on the tower location. As some will know the "City of London" is the medieval historical centre of London with other administrative differences such as a separate police force from the Met, etc.

So? Do we have to call the Tower of London the "Tower of the City of London?" every time it's mentioned.

Well it was certainly closed at one point. I generally avoid Darwen though. No offence.

Hope not. Arsenal didn't even want Bentley a 50% sell on clause was an appalling decision. Sums up just how much the WFIT starved the club.

Not that untypical. The LT is a downmarket tabloid albeit it in a different way to the Sun/Star. The latter 2 are national with more trash and smut whereas the LT is local and just badly reported trash without so much smut. The Sun however does at least have some thought behind it's presentation (in some cases) and understands many of it's readers and sometimes reflects national mood. The Star is just downmarket all the way though I suppose it understands it's readers too. The mid market Mail would use similar headlines though and can't say I disagree really. So would the Guardian with their self righteous, hypocritical stance depending on who it is.

As long as she likes his wife. Not that it helped in one instance.

Might have been a better idea choosing something that isn't likely to be boarded up and derelict in a few years. Look what happened with that public house named after Jack (ended up like so many others) still can't see how he didn't top the voting for that bridge. Quite funny really that people in this day and age think naming a public house after someone is the height of prestige.

Well that's hardly bloody difficult!

I asked someone what their projected fee for Evans would be and they said 400k at most. Could see someone like Sunderland paying that though it obviously depends on who their manager will be. Plus the takeover going through but I can see them having a similar budget to Rovers this season if it's correct about Short writing off a lot. Evans has still been part of a L1 promotion winning squad and on paper that counts for something. For some lazy managers it's enough without looking into the real extent of his contribution.

John Barnes had the nerve to make the same claim (should note above quote refers to Sol Campbell) and this was AFTER his spells at Celtic and Tranmere.

Hey I doubt many people can say they won at Old Trafford in their only top flight game! OK some minor details like being a 89th minute substitute but can't take it away from him!

Really wish everyone would call it FUP though. Everytime people refer to it the other way a little part of me dies inside.

Hey I've had very limited discussions about that kind of subject in the past! I'm not sure about Ipswich yet. Evans has his faults but there's a lot of irony with people on here saying he hasn't invested enough. Not just talking about Venkys I'm also referring to the WFIT. Like Evans they have spent in the past but they have also caused 2 relegations, insulted the fans and made idiotic decision after idiotic decision. Evans has made bad decisions too of course though even the worst probably can't come close to Venkys past errors. Incredibly Evans has managed to top the trustees when it comes to delivering interviews, etc. He's given one in the past and at one time people didn't even know what he looked like! If you can't take the club any further (or you're capable of more but won't deliver the goods) then he probably should try to sell. He's not at the level where fans would seem ungrateful to call for a sale. I've edited this by the way and removed a lot more about the trustees, Walker family etc. So I'm trying to cut down on my obsession with them for the sake of my own stress levels if nothing else. It's impossible not to mention them though looking at the irony with people like Chaddy questioning Evans for not investing more. Some people have claimed Evans has nefarious motives for wanting to keep the club for stuff like tax reasons, etc. He's a tax exile though so I'm not sure where that theory would fit.

Nice of Jim to speak for the whole fanbase. . Reckon there's some argument for McCarthy being a better manager but I can't help wondering if he's just gone stale. He's getting a bit older and you can't help feeling perhaps another promotion could be beyond him. I'm in 2 minds on the remarks as the fans as I've liked some of his blunt speaking in the past (since it's without ego or being a straight up jackass) and dry humor but I can understand their frustration as well. I'm fed up of "be careful what you wish for" as an excuse of attacking anyone who has aspiration or ambition. As someone said in a comments section (on one of the local media sites down there) what are they supposed to do aspire to be boring for another 16 years?

I don't know about "worst" because it depends what the definition is. Jeff Stelling put out a book that named Ostenstad as the worst ever Rovers player. What a load of rubbish! Maybe people say it wasn't supposed to be taken that seriously but it's puff piece journalism. Top 10 lists, etc are lazy journalism in the age of information overload. People might say Kevin Davies, etc as one example and he was absolutely appalling while he was here. So from that perspective you could say he was the "worst". If you take the fee into account you might have a point. My ratings are based on a complete and utter lack of ability combined with performances/level throughout their career. Davies proved that he was a good player eventually albeit it one who blamed everybody but himself and never apologised to Rovers for his poor form. To an extent conduct as well if you include what he did before United game in 1999 when he was spotted the night before drinking, etc) Fettis for me has to be the absolute worst (he didn't have that many games but it was more than one or two like some of the players mentioned) because he was a goalkeeper who couldn't be relied on to even make a save. The defenders must have been terrified having to "protect" him. He probably turned Colin Hendry into a nervous wreck. Then there's Lowe who was a symbol of mediocrity for a long time. I just can't see any value in him as a player though either. What do Thenodrog and others actually see in the guy? He was a useless leader (what a joke choosing him as captain) with no inspirational or creative qualities. His so called defensive qualities never helped the club in any way. "Now I am become death, the destroyer of managers". I can see why Brown has been mentioned primarily for being a striker who couldn't score goals. If you judge players relative to their performances at THIS club though (as those who mention Davies, etc are obviously doing) you could make a case for him being ahead of a few. If little else he did at least have occasional good games. Can't remember Davies having any even when he actually scored. Remember the 3-0 win over Fulham even Brown's detractors thought he played well that night. As I say though lack of ability full stop is probably the main thing for me. I think everyone agrees that's why Kean would be 1st on any Rovers managerial worst list. That's before even bringing his personality into it! OK you could say Kean won at Old Trafford, Liverpool 3-1, etc if you want to contrast that with my remark on Brown occasionally having a good game. They were just flukes though or due to the players still retaining some level of professionalism. You can't say any player giving a good performance is a fluke scenario. Probably thinking too deeply on what's a bit of a "top 10/puff piece" equivalent kinda thread.

Don't think that is White's style. UFC are certainly stricter than boxing authorities have been in the past. Obviously fights are "hyped up" somewhat but I don't really think it's been a setup. Of course White hasn't ruled out McGregor returning so if the money is there they will almost certainly do business. Maybe I'm basing some of it from White coming across as somewhat "zero tolerance" in the past especially when it comes to certain illegalities like hitting referees, etc. The fact he hasn't ruled out McGregor though is telling. Certainly promotional set ups aren't unheard of. I was annoyed by Haye/Chisora suddenly being all "buddy buddy" after their fight and felt manipulated. I was also angry with myself for not seeing it coming. That said I didn't pay to watch the fight (I did watch it though) so suppose it's hypocritical for me to feel cheated lol. Still feel I'm right about White though. Maybe its not unimaginable to think McGregor set it all up with Namid (or whatever his name is) beforehand without White/UFC being involved. Don't want to get too deep with conspiracy theories though just because of one instance where Haye/Chisora managed to manipulate and get my attention. Normally I wouldn't have cared about that fight. Some boxers are truly crazy though certainly Tyson where "anything could happen" and often did! No wonder he was proclaimed as the king of PPV! Big difference between staging a brawl and biting off a chunk of someones ear though!

Can't take every instance of anti-social behaviour so seriously especially something like this. It's not something that has had any direct impact on me. I was arguing with Abbey (that happened a lot on here but its actually quite infrequent these days) who claimed he was trying to kill people but that wasn't the case at all. Remember the guy who flattened numerous buildings in his hometown with a steel reinforced bulldozer? That was so over the top it was funny. OK some of the people took a financial hit because of what he did (some of them did screw him over hence why he did it in the first place) but it's not like he smashed into a crowded school. Therefore what's the point in getting upset about it? I have enough general annoyances as it is but some of those things are everyday stuff or happen from time to time. Rightly or wrongly this is the type of thing that is likely to get my interest. I'm an extremely casual viewer of UFC (certainly knew who Brock Lesnar was but I didn't even watch all his fights) and didn't even know who most of the people on that card were. I didn't watch it either so aside from reading the names (which I've pretty much forgotten already) they haven't gotten my attention. Obviously I knew who McGregor was. I don't watch violence for the sake of violence. It either has to be a major grudge match or something like a superfight between 2 unbeaten fighters. UFC fighters put their health on the line and people pay (or don't in some cases) to watch so forgive me if I'm not gonna complain about a bit of anti-social behaviour. OK the majority of people don't watch hoping to see someone die and that hasn't happened in UFC. I used to watch F1 occasionally (haven't in years) and often hoped for a big pileup at the start of the race. I wanted to see some carnage BUT not for anyone to be killed or seriously injured. Something trivial like a bloody nose wouldn't have made it any better or worse. If I watch a football match with no preference who wins its always good to see some controversy for either side. Of course VAR (at least people don't seem to refer to it as "technology" in every sentence now) has taken away some of that at the top level. That's why I don't like it. Controversy is a part of football and it's less entertaining without it. How on earth can people not laugh when you see something like that "ghost goal" at Watford a few years back? I bet even a few Watford fans laughed at the time because it was so ludicrous. It might happen in L1 of course though preferably not to Rovers in which case it would be annoying especially under current circumstances. It wouldn't change my views on VAR though. Of course a "ghost goal" won't happen at the top level and that's the televised football I usually watch. Not very much these days but its more likely I'll watch a Premier League fixture than some National League game.

Who the hell removed my response to Arbitro's post? Who complained? The whole damn lot of it was true. If I want to attack Northchoke I'll do it the Matthewmans are disgusting.

I didn't actually consider that. I can't speak for everyone but myself and Duncan M discussed Venkys and a few other figures like Anderson, Shaw, etc based on some things written about them. I ruled out Singh because someone was pretending to be him on twitter a while back until Glen M verified it wasn't. There was a screenshot of an exchange with Singh saying he wasn't on twitter (I think he might be now but its a protected account) and had no idea what was being said. Added that he didn't care so not really the words of someone who's likely to take legal action over such things. I certainly know there are some people who are anti-protest so don't think its far fetched at all. I've said before that Anderson, Shaw, etc wouldn't be doing this out of concern for Venkys. I don't ignore lawsuits filed between parties after all. I doubt they would pretend to be Venkys and obviously completely different to an anti-protest Rovers fan with no better way to take it down. Makes no real sense either its not andersonout or shawout.com. Nor would it make sense now either except for anyone who still Anderson is still pulling the strings. Since certain things still aren't clear I've asked if its specifically over the website title. What we know is Madon took it down with the biggest theories being Venkys or duped in the scenario Crimpshrine mentioned. Anyway hopefully the whole thing will become clear sooner rather than later so I don't need to keep editing posts like this over and over.

That's your belief and it's convenient for people pretending it had nothing to do with where he used to work. I was told that Warnock wanted to work 2 days a week and that's why he didn't get it. They probably wouldn't pay him whatever he's on at Cardiff. Coyle was cheaper (obviously I never agreed with the extent of their cost cutting) and his own situation had just changed. Not saying it was right but why not explore Warnock's own demands? Stop listening to people like Philipl and claiming Anderson got Coyle the job. Its nonsense. I would have preferred Warnock over Coyle but most of the candidates were awful. I don't think Warnock is an awful manager but I've never really liked him. You go on about Coyle like he's pure evil and reacted to his name worse than likes of Redfearn/Slade. People abused his son who works with amputees, etc. If one of Mowbray's sons did that (I don't know what they do but you get the point) you would be saying its testament to his upbringing. I just find Warnock rather unlikable as do many others. Would certain people have complained more about Gillingham if Warnock was here? That's ironic and it's one of the "no nonsense" upsides people like Warnock have. Hardly masks his deficiencies overall though.

Indeed. Perhaps BDS would say to someone who's just had their whole family murdered at least they didn't have Coyle as manager of their football club. Completely irrelevant. I haven't missed the irony that saying this is rather childish too lol.