pazzerfox

He could have picked anyone, and the result would be exactly the same.

And people think that changing the manager will be the solution! We are the worst team in the premiership.

Announcement tonight, photos taking place at Seagrave.

It's not a cop out answer. We've played 12 games! I said we've got the worst squad in the league. Look at who we signed. Squad players from Palace and Fulham, a youngster who can't get in Brightons team, a young. raw winger, a midfielder who hardly got a kick for Spurs and a striker who is surplus to requirements at a relegation rival. Ourselves and Southampton will be a battle for second bottom, in my opinion.

Small sample size. Ask me at the end of the season.

Reading the BBC comments. Everyone (other than some of our own fans) seems to think we have the worst squad in the league, which I tend to agree with.

Today's match highlighted a number of glaring issues that are holding the team back. Physically, we seem to be at a disadvantage; there's a lack of presence to hold the ball up or fend off challenges. Technically, we're struggling to maintain possession, with few players able to control the game or make decisive passes. Without a target man up front, we have no outlet to relieve pressure, and the absence of Bouenanote leaves us lacking in creativity. Our attacking options are limited, with no real pace to break through defenses. Defensively, we remain vulnerable, and our midfield lacks the dynamism needed to compete at this level. Our full-backs also fail to contribute effectively going forward, adding to our problems. On top of that, individual errors continue to creep in. At this rate, relegation seems inevitable. Whether the manager is to blame is still unclear, but something needs to change urgently.

That's a championship team.

We are going down, make no mistake.

We had a few friends over last weekend, and two of them are real conspiracy theorists. They often send me things to check out, which I usually just glance at and shrug off, though they're utterly convinced these theories are true. As the evening went on and the drinks kept flowing, they started to share their views on what they think is really happening in the world today, so we decided to humor them. Here’s the gist of what they believe (I'm sure you've heard it all before). A clandestine elite, characterised by psychopathic tendencies, has infiltrated critical sectors of global governance, including medicine, science, defense, finance, and media. This group is orchestrating a deliberate dismantling of existing social structures through an "Imposition and Acquiescence Protocol," which aims to exert total control over the human population. Key political figures, such as Starmer, Trudeau, Barnier, and Putin, are seen as pawns or "stooges" who follow directives from organisations like the WEF, WFO and WHO (who ultimately get there instuctions from pwerful elites who operate in the shadows). The agenda includes triggering a planned World War III, which would lead to a catastrophic collapse of societal systems, setting the stage for a "Great Reset." This reset, heavily influenced by tech moguls like Elon Musk and Bill Gates, envisions a world governed by technocrats. In this new order, a universal basic income would be implemented, compelling compliance from the populace to receive support. As artificial intelligence becomes integrated into every aspect of business, traditional jobs will become obsolete, leaving individuals with no choice but to conform to the new system or risk receiving nothing. Increased taxes often disproportionately affect the middle class, pushing them closer to the working class and widening the gap between the wealthy and everyone else. As taxes rise, the financial burden can limit disposable income for middle-class families, making it harder for them to maintain their standard of living. This shift can lead to a reduction in economic mobility, as those in the middle class find it increasingly difficult to save, invest, or afford education and healthcare. Consequently, the divide between the affluent and the rest of the population continues to grow, exacerbating social and economic inequalities. Privatisation has led to a situation where the government no longer owns essential services or assets, making society overly dependent on private entities and foreign countries for basic needs. Our reliance on other countries will create vulnerabilities, especially in planned times of crisis, where a catastrophic event might expose the fragility of such dependencies. The act of allowing migrants into the country is a deliberate strategy to dilute national identity and create civil unrest, causing divisions among citizens. The government are powerless to stop migration as it's part of the "Elites Agenda". The same is happening in the USA, suggesting a coordinated effort by powerful elites to dismantle western society. They believe that people blame their leaders for these issues, but they believe it's part of a larger, orchestrated plan rather than merely a result of poor governance. They feel people who raise issues or question the mainstream perspective are frequently accused of spreading misinformation, even if they're simply voicing concerns. Those who challenge the system publicly can face backlash, and the mainstream media may portray them as problematic figures or even criminals, effectively silencing their perspectives. They gave examples of Andrew Tate, Russell Brand, Tommy Robinson and Katie Hopkins as individuals who, having spoken out, encountered significant criticism and scrutiny, which you see as attempts to discredit or neutralise their influence. One got quite animated about the vaccine and is adament that an increase in heart attacks and cancers, might not be entirely natural occurrences but could be part of a larger, deliberate plan to reduce population numbers, and the impending large-scale conflict, potentially even World War III, might be part of this hypothetical agenda, furthering this depopulation effort. All this is done very slowly and systematically, so people believe things are random, where in reality everything is orchestrated piece by piece. These elites control the flow of information to the public, shaping the narrative so that the majority end up sharing the same thoughts and perspectives, whilst the others are declared nut-jobs! There was probably more, but I was 2 bottles of red in and too inebriated to remember (or care). They’re genuinely lovely people, and we had a debate but didn't fall out over any of it. It’s fascinating how people can have such outlandish views about the world though.

We've won 2 premier league games on the bounce mate, have a beer and enjoy it! The 7-0 was tongue and cheek to get people like you to bite. 🎣 Have a good evening! Come on Steve...Blue Army!!

We've just won 2 premier league games in a row! We just need to stay up and get a decent foundation to build from.

Cooper is our trooper! Great result today.. get behind our Steve!!!

Post of the day. 👏👏

I agree, he should be criticised, but let us not forget we're debating in a thread entitled "Cooper Out".

We could have won 7-0 and people would still want him out! It doesn't matter what he does I'm afraid, some fans think he is clueless when he's actually far from it!

Brilliant win. Well done Cooper!!

I'm in this boat these days! Used to sleep like a log in my 20's and 30's. Struggle to get 5 hours now! Any ideas why we can't kip like we used to?

"Nicknames are bad............ names."

You're right—when elements or consequences lie beyond the control of those allegedly pulling the strings, it raises valid doubts about the feasibility of such plans. It’s more about their ability to influence key systems—be it through funding, media narratives, or institutional pressures—in ways that benefit their long-term goals. Skepticism is healthy, and I believe it can coexist with the pursuit of greater transparency. You’re absolutely right that science should be shielded from political and personal biases, and ideally, funding would be ring-fenced from such influences. Unfortunately, in practice, funding decisions are often shaped by political, economic, or philanthropic agendas, even if the science itself remains neutral. Researchers tend to follow where the money is, and if certain areas receive more funding because they align with broader social or economic goals, those areas will naturally grow and become more dominant.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply (as always). You've raised some valid points about evidence and the complexity of such claims. Firstly, you're right that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. However, it’s also important to remember that many significant historical events and power dynamics were hidden in plain sight for long periods before documentation or whistleblowers brought them to light. I'm not claiming that Norgangard's book offers definitive proof (I haven't read it to sunstantiate his "evidence") on its own, but it compels a deeper examination of the ties between powerful financial interests and global initiatives, such as climate change. While the Rockefeller influence may be speculative to some degree, it's historically true that they have shaped many aspects of finance, industry, and philanthropy, often with significant global impacts. That doesn't mean every claim is accurate, but we shouldn't dismiss concerns without investigating more thoroughly. In response to your point about it not making sense for some of the smartest peoplke on the plane, going alomng with the lie. I guess It’s important to remember that many smart, well-intentioned people aren’t necessarily “in on” a grand lie but may be influenced by structural incentives, particularly when it comes to funding and career advancement. In academia and research, funding plays a massive role in determining which projects get pursued and published. Large-scale initiatives, like climate change research, often attract significant financial backing from governments, philanthropic organisations, and private donors. This isn’t inherently a problem, but it does create a system where certain narratives or approaches might be favored over others based on where the money flows. I like (and agree) with your last paragragh of a 1984 scenario being the lesser of two evils and one that avoids the potential of a catastrophe!

Whenever I get sent something like this, my first thought is always "I think I'll get a more reasoned view from @leicsmac "

Looks offside from this angle.

My view is that a point at Palace isn't a bad result with our current situation on and off the pitch. If you look at the Palace forum, they believe we are relegation fodder and are aggrieved they couldn't beat us, and i'm pretty sure every other club will be thinking the same. The style now is very much one of making us hard to beat, rather than attacking, fluid football at every opportunity. It's obviously dividing opinion but if we stay up, I personally don't care.

Palace just paid a fortune for Nketiah, have one of the most coveted wingers in the league, a centre back that Newcastle wanted to spend £40 plus million on and a young midfielder who is very highly rated. Meanwhile, we have taken two of their squad players who weren't regulars in their first team. A bit more perspective is needed I think.