um pahars

That's being a tad harsh on Wotton as he least he does something. Gillett is a waste of space. He gave away possession soon after he came on and they should have scored, and I'm sure when the highlights get put up somewhere, you will see Gillett jogging back and failing to pick up Tudgay. PS that's not criticising the youngsters, as Gillett is 23, and is nothing more than a lower league player. Just calling it as I see it. PPS I remember being worried pre season when people were saying Gillett was our star performer and I was thinking fccuk me, if he's the best we've got then we're in for a rough ride.

In which case you missed Wednesday's three best chances, one of which they converted. First half was good for long spells, although once agian we couldn't convert posession into goals, but in the second half we were totally outfought, outthought and outplayed. Our current position in the league is similar, but our points per game ratio is down. In fact if we had our current PPG ratio we would have got relegated last season!

Sheffield has alot going for it. Martin Fry, Phil Oakey, Glenn Gregory are all examples of what Sheffield produces and were top rate tonight. However, on the pitch, in the form of Wednesday they weren't too clever (but that says quite a bit about us) and as for that fat fcccuker in the stands, well 6 years ago it was fairly humorous, but it's now worn a bit thin. What next??? A group of ex miners bringing their trombones into a football ground???? They hate The Sun because it supported Thatcher and McGregor and yet a decade later they're all wearing Sun bowler hats and letting them sponsor a band!!!!!! Moving on, it was a game of two halves. First half we were very pretty, controlled the game, scored a good goal and looked comfortable. Second half we were awful, sat back, let them take the advantage and were lucky to get a point. If the substitutions last week salvaged a point, then todays cost us two. Gillet is fffucccking useless and almost cost us a goal befoe they scored. ****55ed off again and cant be ars5ed to hand out points apart from: gillet = -3 (yes minus three) McGoldrick = 1

I don't doubt for one minute that some damage was done when Hone and Co did not implement Plan B last summer, BUT the real damage was done when we were relegated. The tens of millions lost from falling from the top table dwarfs the few million overspent last season (which in no way condones that stupid overspend, just pointing out where the real damage was done).

Have a look in the notes, because that is where the intention to or not to would be. As for the £70k fugure that is 5% of our nominated issued share capital (approx 5% of our 28,000,0000 existing shares with a nominal value of 5p) which they can issue without having to offer some to existing shareholders.

Both of these resolutions had been passed in something like 2003/4 (and before that in the late 90's as well) and have expired (I think after 5 years), so therefore need reintroducing. They are both to do with issuing unissued shares (if that makes sense). Normally shares can only be issued with shareholders approval in a general meeting, but the first one allows for the directors to allocate a third of the shares without this aproval. The second one then allows for 5% of the company's shares to be issued outside of a rights issue. Normally when shares are issued in a rights issue existing shareholders have a right to take up their %'s. This allows for issues of 5% to by-pass this. Can't see anything controversial there, but on the second one is there a line that says something like "at preset the Directors have no intention to exercise this authority"???

As I have said above, I have no problem wth the positive noises as ultimately it could be for the benefit of the Club (at least financially). But as Billy points out, he just can't help himself from laying the blame on everyone else, and conveniently forgetting so much happened whilst he was in charge and bullshi77ting about how it's bad when players left under others, but when it happens under him there's nothing you can do about it. He certainly has appeared to have popped up following his initial period of radio silence but sadly the stations content is still the same and own goals are once again being give airplay.

In this instance I think he might be doing exactly what he did when we first went down and people came sniffing. At that point he knew we were desperate, but he went in the press saying no one had to be sold (particularly at that time Crouch) which helped to ensure we didn't sell on the cheap. In that instance I didn't have a problem with that bit of spin as ultimately it was for the good of the Club (in that it helped us get a good wedge). Therefore if it's the same bit of spin, then I can't complain. But of course if it is spin and we do have to ship out the talented ones, then it won't make it any easier to swallow (particularly if they really don't want to go).

£££ Thank you very much indeed.

The acid test will come when Spurs wave a 4 year deal worth 5 million in front of him and then they whisper 3 million in Lowe's ear. Nice to hear he doesn't want to go, and as others have said, I think he could benefit from staying here longer, but pretty soon actions will need to speak louder than words. (PS How the fccuk do I get the pound sign to appear rather than the ### sign whenever I press shift 3???)

I wonder how much he will be asking for this time around???? I imagine it will be slightly down from the 20million+ when he was last in town!!!!!!

Said it last night. it's a banged on 4-1 result. Just don't ask me where I got this info from, because otherwise the FA wil do a Derby/Norwich on us.

As I have said on many occasions, the manager (or Head Coach as Lowe would like to call them). And BTW I think you'll find there is much angst displayed against both Burley and Redknapp on here and in real life. In football, managers, CEO's and Chairman (and even payers) will get praise when they do well and they will also get criticism when they make mistakes. As long as there approach is consistent and fair, I fail to see what's wrong with that. But going back to that article, if you think stretching the truth is including three players who were regulars and who ****ed off for the money and status, along with one who ****ed off straight after Lowe, and using them as a stick to beat his predecessrs with, then in your Professors league of living in a dream world. (PS When Wigley left we were in the bottom three).

You must be living in some parallel universe if you really believe this. On the same day that Lowe was berating the former board for letting these 6 youngsters go, he was elsewhere saying: "While you’re in the Championship, there’s no point in saying that players aren’t going to move, because ultimately they’re the people who decide whether they’re going to go or not,” he explained. “A club can’t make a player leave, a player makes a decision he’s going to leave. “If he gets what he considers to be a better offer, and he’s making a career progression and he’s earning more money, then very often it’s them who will decide they are going to go." Three of those who left were getting regular first team football (in fact I think we were building a team around them), but left for mega wonga and to ply their trade in the highest tier. If you really think Lowe would have held on to Bale, Baird and Jones (who even went on strike), then you're living in fantasy land - Theo, Bridge and then the history of Beattie, Richards, Phillips, etc etc etc. Blackstock left a month after Lowe, so his career was obviously "blighted" by Burley and Lowe (who had also just signed Rasiak). Who cares? Let's blame the old lot. The problem with the lines peddled in that interview is that they clearly contradict with what he is saying elsewhere in the same week. Young players who go when he was not around are a waste of talent and we should have held on to them. Young players who go (or might go) when he is at the helm leave us with no choice as they hold the balance of power.

Yet he tries to blame others for the loss of Bale, Baird and Jones. Work that one out:rolleyes::rolleyes: Of course he would have stood in their way and made them stay wouldn't he:confused::confused::confused: I presume you are being ironic here???? Lowe is running the show, full stop. Wilde gets to write a column in the programme and call himself Chairman, but with two of the other directors in his pocket, there is no other way than Lowe's way.

At the time Blackstock left, Burley had been in situ something like 6 months. For Baird, Bale, Best, Jones & Cranie they left after the manager had been in situ for 18 months. They also left just after we had been in the play offs and had come pretty close to gaining promotion. At that point Burley's stock was pretty good. Blackstock left a month into the new management, after being snubbed under Burley and Lowe. Lowe's last act was to sign a striker in Rasiak ensuring he was further down the pecking order. Four of the others then left after we reached the play offs, moving on to Premiership teams for significantly more wages than they were on down here. Those players left to earn more wages and to ply their trade in the top flight (or at least attempt to). Those two factors were the deciding reasons for the moving on, not the fairy stories you're trying to push. Lowe himself admits you can't keep a player against his will, which makes his claims (and yours) rather strange!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I also agree, because in selling these players so quickly it totally undermines his vision of having a young, strong team competing for the play offs. He also knows that if it does happen, then he will lose the little goodwill there is towards him out there. He wants this Club to succeed (because he will then benefit both financially and ego wise), and so he would love to keep as many of these players together as possible and hopefully get us promoted. This is actually one of the problems with his philosophy, because the minute any player shows some promise they will be snapped up by those with the mega bucks and we effectively go back to square one.

We will win 4-1. Go and put a bet on it as I have got some inside info.

For the period when Blackstock couldn't get a look in, the manager was Burley and the CEO was Lowe (that was what I meant by that line, in that it was his appointment being overseen by him who was stifling this boy's future, i.e. it didn't happen in the two years that he was away!). Therefore I see absolutely no relevance for Blackstock being used in his little tirade given he appointed that manager and he was overseeing the Club in his dual role of CEO and Chairman.

Considering his non appearance recently (and the comments made by JP) it would appear that Jan has written him off!!!!! Cork and Pearce have been good loan signings, but after that I can't help but think the others have been a waste of time, effort and money.

BTW, you might want to rephrase your question as although we all know what you really mean, i.e. time to dump the listing on AIM, dear old Jonah might have a heart attack if he sees this title.

I would at least like to see an open and honest debate about why we maintain our AIM listing, the cost of listing and compliance etc, set off aginst the benefits (tangible or not). My personal opinion is that I can no longer see the point in maintaining such a listing, but would be only too happy for people to explain why we should. With regards transparency, there is nothing to stop the Club/company providing more information to fans (remember the three year or so cashflow they put on the OS a few years back). Of course we should never compromise our competitive position, but I see nothing wrong with providing more detailed information to both shareholders and supporters. As you yourself said the other week, this Club has a special role in the community, so why not talk in an open and honest way with the community? As far as I am aware we have no major institutional investors (at least above 3% anyway), so I can't really see any obstacles out there (apart from Lowe and his cabal of course).

You're spot on with what you say there C B Fry, but I think most of the vitriol is actually aimed at Lowe's claim that it was his idea to have an Academy and the way that he continues to portray it as his vision. I think that it is that arrogance and ignorance of the past that ****3es people off more than anything else.

But IMHO we're not a closely held company. The man who has the two boss jobs has 5% of the company and has the suport of about 8 others who hold 20%. That support appears fairly stable. After that, he currently has the support of one individual with 16%, who couldn't stand him a year ago, so hardly a solid relationship. After that you have something like 58% of the shares held by a myriad of others, with only Crouch having a notable stake (at 10%). I fully accept that where an individual truly has a majority shareholding, then they can either take the boss job for themself or appoint someone they want, but that is not the case in our situation. I can see no reason why the CEO and the Chairman position has to come from the same gene pool (and include Crouch, Wilde and others in that). We should simply be looking to appoint the best person for the job, and quite frankly if those supporting Lowe think he is the best man, then I can only think they are rather myopic and insular in their outlook.

If that was his point then: a) Bale, Baird & Jones were regulars and left, as Lowe himself acknowledges, because they wanted to go on and play at a higher level (for more wonga). So why include them in his little story? b) Who was the manager that never played the others (and who appointed that manager)? c) Blackstock left a month or so after Lowe was deposed, so who were the players blocking Blacksotck prior to that point? They were Rasiak, Fuller, Jones, Madsen, all brought in whilst who was CEO? d) So we're probably left talking about Best, who IMHO is nothing special (I think even DMG has been more prolific this season and I dont really rate him), and Cranie who has hardly set the world alight. So, I still don't know what Lowe was trying to get at!!!!!!!!!