They must see this as a big game down there only 150 tickets left for them, game heading for a total sell out. Decent going considering both teams are on dreadful form.

Good on them they probably never thought they would play pools as equals i just hope our payers have some pride and desire to represent Hartlepool United.

Darlo have sold 750 for the Durham Challenge Cup tie with Pools.

That's sadder than a Carol Kirkwood obsession.

Unless you're a Loid.

They might always get that for reserve/youth team fixtures!

I noticed Harrogate’s ground holds only 4,000 with just 500 seats added to the plastic pitch it could be an explanation for the dip in form and a decent time to play them as they couldn’t realistically be promoted. Do the conference have any rules on grounds? only 500 seats seems tiny.

The grounds getting redeveloped to around 6000 shortly, so unfortunately for pools, i dont think they have started throwing games just yet. Mind you we would still struggle to score.

The chairman is rich enough to rip the plastic up and put grass down.

I know a local taxi driver who has a couple of nephews currently playing professional footie. One is at Gillingham and the other at Aldershot and the latter told him that Harrogate were a shit hot side when they played them. Hopefully, the first part of that assessment prevails on Saturday so, errrrrr, 2 - 1 to Pools then...……………….

They have a good striker in Knowles who knows where the net is seen him play for them before against us and Harrogate 2-3 seasons back.

Second highest scorers in this league, usually get 2 or 3, so reckon we will need to score 2 to beat them, cant see that happening. Big side as well, decent keeper, experience in Kelvin Langmead, Falkingham on the wing, and 2 tanks up front in Knowles and Muldoon , if we're not at it, it could be a long afternoon.


As for the pitch , they probably never envisaged getting into the FL this early, if they do, its served its purpose and they will have to rip it up, which as someone said earlier, they can afford to.

They looked a decent side when they nicked a 2-2 draw at the Vic in our first home game of the season. Considering the run Harrogate went on afterwards it's ironic that us Poolies were furious to have dropped 2 points to them.

The Pools side that day was Loach -Kioso, Davies, Magnay, Kitching - Noble, Featherstone, Donaldson - Muir, Cassidy, James.

Davies has gone and Noble is out injured, but the other 9 could play this Saturday. They're not quite the rubbish people are making them out to be - only 2 defeats in the first 16 NL games was a great run in itself. Be nice to see a bit of self-belief and organisation coming back into the side - howay Dickie Dosh, get them sorted out!

We looked a decent side that night, especially going forward, what’s happened!?

As we have seen recently with Man U, depends if they are playing for the manager or not, didnt look like it v Telford. If they are, then I agree with you, not as rubbish as people making them out to be. However I imagine an early season Davies and Noble will be sorely missed this time around.

If they're 'not playing for him' after 7 games he's screwed and so are we. Fortunately, I doubt very much that's true - not on his wavelength yet, maybe - the constant chopping and changing can't be helping.

I remember coming away from that game thinking this season is going to be a cracker, that game we had constant runners getting in behind the strikers in turns too, whether it be Woods or Noble. Then a few games in don’t know whether they got tired or not it just stopped, that’s when the goals started drying up and the defeats started coming.

You're memory's playing the odd trick then - Woods didn't get on the pitch. The two subs used were Newton and McLaughlin.

My memory of games is nothing short of pathetic - I'd be lost without my programme collection and ITMC

Must have just been Noble getting in behind then as I can’t imagine it was Featherstone!

Either way it was better than this shit!

Loach, Magnay, Davies, Kioso, Donaldson, Featherstone (McLaughlin 68), Noble, Kitching, Muir (Newton 87), James, Cassidy

Stronger team then than now ...

It was a 3-4-3. Bates gave it up a few games later because Pools were leaking too many goals and became terminally fixated on five at the back.

Got to say Hignett made the best fist of switching formation (to a 4-4-2) in his two games in charge.

We weren't leaking goals though, until Salford on 25th Sept, when we conceded three, no team had scored more than one against us. Salford was 13 games in. Our problem has always been scoring, even since then, Bromley apart, even without Davies, no teams have run riot against us.

I’m not sure it was leaking loads of goals but it didn’t really work in terms of balance we were one short in midfield the full backs didn’t know if the were wing backs or not. The Ebbsfleet home game was a horrific, disjointed performance it he got rid of it after that. I reckon Bates had got carried away watching the World Cup to come up with that system.

It feels like 'leaking goals' if you're playing a front three at home and the opposition is still scoring more goals than you are - something Richard Money is now familiar with after the Maidstone and Telford games. Will he stick with a misfiring front three in a tough away fixture like Harrogate? We'll soon know.

Can't speak for the Telford game because I didn't go but Maidstone was certainly horrific and disjointed too.

But you said we were leaking goals at the start of the season, when we weren't and never have, Bromley apart. I agree though it feels like it. I was amazed when I looked back at those first 12 games of the season and saw no team had even put 2 past us.

be interesting to know the times of all the goals we have conceded. even salford we were as good as them in the first half but once they scored that was it.

It would, but I cant be arsed to find out. I have seen most games, and from memory they seem to be spread across the whole 90 mins, with no particular pattern like first 10 mins, last 10, either side of half time etc, from behind, after been in front , could be wrong though.