That sentence is so wrong it makes me question whether or not you've ever even seen the 2 players in question play.

Whilst I commend him being honest if that's what he thinks, that's a hell of a kick in the nuts for our 20s and 18s if he did actually come out and say it. What must they think the point in being at the club is now?

All those chips and gathers. The little tyke.

He did say it, and we said exactly what you have said it must be a kick in the nuts.

having seen our u20s a few times im not sure how many would make the step up, obviously we have bowden, kent and crooks but the rest seem a way off, maybe lineham could be the next one

It's a big kick in the nuts for the club too though unfortunately if these players aren't good enough. It would depend on the player on whether or not they took it as an insult, or whether they saw it as a motivating factor to improve. The club needs the second type of player representing it - not the first.

Im unable to get down to the kids games so i cant comment on the quality of players in the 18's or 20's but i sure as hell trust gentles opinion if he believes there is no one there good enough to make the step up. Kick in the nuts it may be for the guys but for me it just highlights the complete shambles the previous regime set up

I do not disagree with AP tbh, the scouting for FC was shocking the U18s were chosen at 12yrs old!! and they were never really interested in any other players even at 16s they would come and watch the academy kids at club level and 9 times out of 10 there were better players on the pitch and they simply were not interested in them or what the club coaches had to say, thankfully all that changed when AP took over but like he said we will have to wait for the 16s and there are some fantastic prospects in that age group.

The point is though, that regardless of whether or not he's right, there may come a time next season where we have to play some of those lads. I'd rather have someone stepping in who believes he's playing for his future at the club (whether rightly or wrongly), rather than someone who knows his employers see no future for him.

I'm not sure where he said that anyone didn't have a future ? He highlighted a strong 16s level and why shouldn't he if that's in fact the case. He didn't say that all other players in other groups didn't have a future in the same way he didn't name every player in the 16s and say they did. If a player is getting a first team chance then they are likely seen as having potential regardless of which age group they are from. If they're not then they're probably not good enough.

I was delighted that Pearson talked about ring-fencing our strongest young prospects. Exactly what I wanted to hear.