Les-TA-Jon

My 2nd ever 15K on Saturday. Somehow took 03:45 off the time, and 02:30 off my 10K PB.

The confusion may be because you literally said: Which sounds like you're saying the current squad is as good or better than the Pearson 2008 one (and you did initially claim the current squad is the best the division has ever seen). Oh I totally agree that under Martin the current squad is massively underperforming.

Which of our strikers do you think will exceed 27 goals and 8 assists? And you think Riis will do "significantly better" than 13 goals and 14 assists? Yes? Lundstrum isn't going to captain us to a league win, go half the season unbeaten, lose only once at home and do better than 8 goals, 6 assists is he? I'm not sure why you're talking about Andy King in 2026. This is about if 2008 Andy King (9 goals, 4 assists) is better than our current midfield options.

Do you really think anyone in our current squad is going to get numbers anywhere close to this? Let alone 5 players on double figures of goal contributions? Easy to say with the power of hindsight but the Pearson League One team won the league, went half the season unbeaten and only lost about 3 games (only once at home all season). Even just mentality wise, they're clearly far superior.

O'Hora was as much at fault as Thomas and Lundstrum for that second goal. Totally switches off, forget that the eventual scorer is over his left shoulder and then fails to clear it

It's really hard to tell how good our squad could actually be or not, under Martin. But it feels hard to believe the level of managerial underperformance is so bad that Martin = relegation and anyone else = promotion.

We've played 4 of the current bottom 7 and not beaten any of them...

In other news, had the best run of my life Saturday morning. 15K. 1hr 36m Furthest ever. 10K PB in there. Negative split on each 5K: 33, 32, then 31 mins

Multiple things are true: 1) the club is a mess and any manager will struggle under this ownership 2) the 'next manager' is always seen as some sort of panacea, but never can be because of the above and because: 3) the club enforce a style that doesn't work for our players/level 4) RM has underperformed given the level of backing and signings

There's absolutely nothing wrong with a new manager saying "We've/you've been shit for a long time" In fact, it's what we need; someone to come in, and hold the players, board and overall mentality of the club to account and to change standards - you can't do that unless you have the balls to recognise past failures up to this point. You can imagine Nigel Pearson would have done similar in 2008, right? The problem is that Martin is saying 1) without the results/changes to back it up and 2) as a self-defense mechanism.

I'm 75~ KG. There's a bloke on instagram (@owedpedz) who is 133kg and is faster than me

Yeah we did some walking rugby at work back in March 2025 and after 2 minutes I was completely blowing! Started Couch to 5K the next week and have largely kept us since. 2025 was a bit inconsistent and slow progress, but I did my first 10K by the end of the year. 2026 has been better. Sub 30min 5K felt impossible at one point. My PB is now down to 28mins. Since April running much more consistently and now on a 29 week streak of 3 runs per week. 13K largest distance so far and aiming to do Half Marathon distance by the end of 2026.

Ah OK. I've basically been inactive (in terms of sport) my whole life and I started running March 2025 (at the age of 35) - so the idea of running literally everyday seemed crazy to me, without more context about your background. I've been running 3 times a week since I started 18 months ago, but very much feel the need for the rest days.

It’s a group game

Bloody hell. How long have you been running for? How much training does it take to be able to run this high a volume, with literally zero rest?

Some of you guys seem to be doing 40 to 60K a week or more I've been doing well for my standards over the last 6 months at approx 20K a week. How do you fit it all in? Is it simply 4-5+ days a week running? Is every run a 'long' run? Or are you doing HM or more each week?

I'd be more concerned about Saturday's game. Many players haven't had a break / have been travelling due to the Internationals. And tonight's lineup will likely be weird/full of kids.

There will barely be 12 people following the game, let alone 12 timezones!

"Legal Opinion" is a specific phrase in law though, to be fair

Whilst, historically the 'big' club have also 'bought' their success, Man City's recent success is a little different is it not? They've absolutely dominated since 2009

Shaved 64 secs off my 5K PB this morning.

Thanks for continuing to engage and explain and well done us for this not turning into the 'a man is wrong on the internet' meme. I actually agree with what you're saying in principle, I too absolutely despise what modern football has become especially the circus around financial rules etc and I agree that idealistically there would be spending and salary caps that turn it into a true meritocracy. Imagine how good football would be if it was truly about who can scout, assemble and coach the best team? I think where we still diverge, is that just because the rules up until this point aren't fair or don't match the above ideal, doesn't mean clubs should have carte blanche to ignore and break them. I guess a perfect outcome here would be a big punishment for Man City, but ultimately this is the case that causes a huge revolution of the rules in general.

For clarity, I don't think we're actually that far away from agreeing, for what it's worth. I'm not so bothered about the Roy Keane stuff or what players should or shouldn't feel about their achievements. That's not what I'm focused on here. I agree that the big clubs are a cartel. That the various FFP/PSR rules over the years have been to protect the status quo. That they pulled the ladder up after them. On that basis there's something inherently 'unfair' about spending rules that limit the activities of Man City, Newcastle, Leicester, Villa etc. But as I say, that's a separate debate. "The rules are morally wrong = / = Man City didn't break the rules" I guess I'm just hung up on the semantics of you treating what seem clearly to me to be unequivalent things, as the same thing. I'm not trying to be obtuse here but it also reads like, by your logic, every team that has had the 'most expensive team' and won something at the same time has essentially 'cheated' their way to that silverware. Which would likely apply to 95% of all silverware won in this country in last 2-3 decades? And I presume you think Man City have done literally nothing wrong and deserve no punishment whatsover?

Can you point out where I said the historical dominance of the big clubs was acceptable? I merely saying they're different things and it's simply inaccurate and unhelpful to say they're the same thing. For clarity, I'm no fan of any of the 'big clubs', especially the way they dominate the league, tried to the Super League thing and their part in the commercialisation of the sport, the hollowing out of any sort of fan connection, their ongoing 'war' against 'legacy fans', their part in the lack of access to fairly costed televised matches for people here in the UK and how much they have helped the game to become a complete and utter moral vacuum and vehicle for sportswashing. But it's just a truism of the sport that clubs that happened to be 'big' and were well placed in the 90s, have used that position to dominate. It's not 'cheating' and it's not the same as Man City's 'sham contracts' scheme is it? You're not seriously saying Thierry Henry should throw all his medals in the bin, for the exact same reasons Aguero and Haaland should?

It's an advantage for sure. And there's a whole debate to be had about how much historically 'big' clubs have benefitted from their historic dominance, and how various financial rules have protected a status quo that's to their benefit. But that and the Man City stuff is just a patently different thing. So all of the big clubs have been 'cheating' for the last 40+ years then, in your view? What specific rules have they been breaking?