Wes Tender

Such a minor piece of functionality that it might as well not exist, eh? What really is the point of an "ignore" button, if by the simple expedient of some other poster quoting that ignored poster, their posts will be visible? Scroll on past it, you say. In exactly the same way that one would have had to scroll all of the posts of those one wished to ignore if the button didn't exist. If you're not going to accept constructive criticism from posters, then do something about those posters who get others wound-up or angry, rather than just metaphorically shrugging your shoulders. There have been plenty enough comments about posters declining to come on here as frequently as they used to, or not being bothered to pay their fiver because they are fed up with the incessant bickering and WUM's ruining the forum. It's your forum. If you want the level of debate to deteriorate, the number of subscribers to decline, then just don't do anything to prevent it going in the direction it is.

Whenever they play any other team, their players can believe that their fans are singing it to encourage them. But when they play us, it is a golden opportunity for us to sing it simultaneously and our players will believe that it is sung to "spur" them on. I noticed the commentator on the Spurs v Arsenal match mentioned it as Spurs' song when it was chanted. I wonder whether he would think that we had stolen it if he heard it sung by us at St Mary's? Cretin. The title and words include our club's well recognised nickname, so obviously it is our song.

How? The toff was obviously going to wish to look after the poor, whereas the PM from a commoner's background would naturally want to look after the rich?

Ironic really that Thatcher was the daughter of a grocer, Grammar School educated until University, whereas Benn was a member of the aristocracy and educated at one of England's top Public Schools. But your view couldn't really have been much more simplistic.

Sideways and back passing are pefectly acceptable under some circumstances. By all means keep possession when you are ahead or not chasing the game. Frustrate the other team and draw them forward if they seek to regain possession and wait for that tactic to create spaces upfield that can be exploited. But to have passages of play where the ball is passed forwards, then back, then sideways, when all the time our space and players are steadily being closed down at the back is just inviting disaster sooner or later. For crissakes, it's the tactic we use on rivals, close down space high up the field and gain possession in dangerous areas. A bit ironic that yesterday Norwich got both their goals from employing our tactics. And I was full of admiration for them when they had scored the two goals and had us on the rack, for they way that they got the ball into our box at every opportunity, putting immense pressure on our defence. OK, there was the risk that we would hit them on the break, as we did, but it was a gamble worth taking for them, as it was either go for it full tilt, or lose anyway. When we are behind in a match, we still try too often to pass the ball into the net, allowing time for the defence to get back in numbers.

The OP is right to highlight the problems we caused ourselves by passing the ball around at the back and it was only a matter of time before we were punished for it. I mentioned this in my post on the match thread and would have expected Pochettino to get them to stop it at his half-time talk. But he obviously didn't, or the players weren't listening, because they just carried on in their own merry little careless way and sure enough we did get punished. To do it once and concede was bad enough, but to do it again almost immediately afterwards was inexcusable. Fair enough to pass the ball around the back, waiting for an opening upfield to exploit with a pass, in the meantime hoping to draw their players forward and create open spaces upfield for us. But why do we do it when they already have attackers upfield ready to close us down immediately and with the potential to pounce on any loose ball, or to win a 50/50 tackle? When that situation arises, the solution is to get the ball forward. Both goals yesterday were caused by us faffing about at the back and both were totally unavoidable.

We played some sublime football for the first 20 minutes or so and Schneiderlin scored a good goal to reward our efforts, but then the game went flat until the half-time whistle. What made me nervous, was the way that we faffed about at the back, Boruc making short passes to the defence and them passing it across the goalmouth in pub-team fashion, inviting a mistake that would allow Norwich to punish us. We got away with it a couple of times but you felt that our luck would run out eventually if we carried on like that. I felt sure that Pochettino would tell them to stop it in the second half, but we didn't. Boruc's kicking out was atrocious, which didn't help. We started the second half brightly and although Lallana's substitution raised an eyebrow, on the other hand it needed Ricky in to hold the ball up, something that we had often failed to do. It really was a dream substitution to result in Ricky scoring within minutes of coming on like that and when he selflessly passed to Rodriguez to score the third, we were cruising. The fight seemed to go out of Norwich and it looked as if we would see the match out with a clean sheet, no bother. And then that sloppy faffing about at the back came to bite us on the bum and they scored. It gave them a lift, some hope that after all the day was not lost. Another sloppy defensive error and another goal from Norwich and all of a sudden it was squeaky bum time, as they had their tails up and laid siege to our penalty area. At every opportunity they pumped the ball into the box and the defence suddenly found that they had to concentrate or lose 2 or even 3 points. But there was always an opportunity to hit a team desperately pressing for a late goal with a sucker-punch on the break and thankfully the ball broke kindly for us and we surged up the pitch and Gallagher scored his first goal for us at a very propitious time to win us the match. In reality, it should have been relatively easy to have kept a clean sheet, had the defence not fallen asleep and pratted about passing the ball sideways and backwards so much. But it was great that all three strikers got their names on the scoresheet and a midfielder too. Schneiderlin was immense in midfield today, as was Davis. Clyne and Shaw were also good, but I'm afraid that Boruc, Fonte and Lovren didn't have one of their finest games. Lambert will hopefully have received a great confidence boost for the part he played today and none of our lads did themselves any harm in front of Hodgson. In the end, a good result for us, made better by going above Newcastle, the day made perfect by the Skates losing.

No. You said that he quit because he was ...a quitter. And you inferred that he realised that he couldn't progress us any further. And you haven't answered my question; has his height got anything to do with his capabilities? Not only have I noticed that he has departed, but I also expressed an opinion on his successor. Or didn't you notice?

Kind of you to admit that Norwich were promoted a year ahead of us, therefore had the extra revenue from Sky and televised matches and PL income. You had previously insinuated that we were promoted the same year. It was a tremendous feat for both clubs to achieve successive promotions. regardless of two clubs managing it, it is still very rare in modern football. Norwich did well in their two first seasons, no doubt. But now they are flirting with relegation, whereas we are 9th and hoping to go still higher. But still, we had Kelvin, so we obviously had an advantage.

There really are none so blind as those that will not see. They weren't agreeing with you. They also expressed the view that I did, that Cortese left because he couldn't have total control over everything. But carry on deluding yourself, that you have any support (apart from your two playground allies) for your weird theory that Cortese was a quitter because he was not capable of taking us further,

I think you need to check your facts. Norwich got there a year earlier than us, so are in their third year, with an additional year's income from Sky and the league over us. And comparisons between the players are also laughable too. Lallana is compared by pundits against Snodgrass and even Hoolahan, our kids Shaw and Chambers have only come to prominence this season and you mention Kelvin why? Isn't Ruddy the better keeper than him? And your fellow WUM Barry thought that they had spent much more wisely than us last summer and they were going to set the league on fire with the likes of Wolf's Winkie. What became of him?

I don't see anybody agreeing with your suppostion, (although I suspect that the other two members of your little gang are your fellow yes men) whereas apart from Nick G and me, there are two other posters after me reaching pretty well the same conclusion as to the reasons for Cortese's departure. I'm sorry to disappoint you and I will not grasp that stick, as I don't agree with your conclusions which are based on nothing in particular except your flawed judgement. It is plain that your opinion is based on some prejudice against Cortese, demonstrated by your infantile reference not to his lack of stature, but to his lack of height. Could you please explain whether it is your opinion that height has anything to do with success. Bernie Ecclestone is shorter than Cortese, but seems to have done a pretty good job at running Formula 1.

It's probably Dennis Healey or the tub of lard, Hattersley. I didn't mind Skinner. He was just the court jester, an irreverent clown. Nobody took him seriously and he had zero hope of achieving any position of power and influence and he was useful in deflating over-weening egos.

I'm glad that you acknowledge it as a fact, that the club wanted Cortese to stay and that they thought he had done a wonderful job. Beyond that, it is ludicrous to label him as lacking the skills to progress the club further towards the Champions League and to conclude that he was a quitter. He had taken us this far, so there is no particular reason to assume he couldn't take us further. It seems to me that the more likely conclusion that could be reached, is that he was such a single-minded control freak that he wanted to have total control over everything, including the finances he would require to achieve that goal and when Katharina told him, not unaturally, that she needed to have some control over the expenditure of her money, he left on a matter of principle. Stubborn, pig-headed, a control freak, single-minded, driven, extremely ambitious, maybe one or all of those things, but a quitter is the last thing I would accuse him of. But it doesn't surprise me at all that you would reach that conclusion, as you can always be relied on to grasp the wrong end of the stick.

It is simply the laws of supply and demand. We are talking about the top four glory clubs all expressing interest in him. It depends how much they want him. We don't need to sell him and they aren't short of a bob or two. When he wants to go himself, that will shift the emphasis a bit. But if he stays a season longer, his value will only go one way. £30 million is less than half of what Bale commanded. It depends whether he is seen as having the same potential eventually.

Bernat apparently. http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/chelsea-identify-manchester-united-target-bernat-cole-replacement-1440329 But there is no likelihood that this story has any more basis of fact than any of the other speculation about Shaw.

Anthony Wedgewood Benn was educated at Westminster and New College, Oxford, so naturally with his egalitarian leftie principles, he didn't like it to be known that he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, a member of the aristocracy, educated amongst the sons of other toffs. I remember him well as Postmaster General in Harold Wilson's government and I'm not going to lose any more sleep over his passing than I will when Roy Hattersley and Dennis Healey pop their clogs. They're next and no doubt similar platitudes will be trotted out about what splendid fellows they were too.

£21 million? Plus which player? Because £21 million by itself will not be sufficient to prise him away from us, not when other major glory clubs want him too. What was more interesting was the story that there was a Spanish alternative being lined up by Chelsea who was reckoned to be as good, but who would cost £10 million less. But that still leaves Man Utd and others looking at him and we have no need to sell anyway. I'd ignore claims that the deal is nearly done, as we have been promised that that they had been done in the January transfer window and nothing happened then.

Typical of the skate citizenry to attempt to break a World record using imaginary guitars. I have some other suggestions for them. Next they could go for the World records for the number of people simultaneously jumping up and down on imaginary Pogo Sticks and the length of time that imaginary hula hoops could be kept going by the greatest number too. I understand that the imaginary plate spinning record might also be within their grasp. Plenty of scope there for idiots in the PO postal code area to take money from their idiot neighbours. But that other record they are going for has been exceeded many times over by us on this very thread. Instead of the comedy having to last a mere 82 hours and be watched by a minimum 10 people at any one time, we have been entertained by Skate comedians for nearly five years. I would guess that any one time of the day or night, there were at least 10 people around the World in different time zones looking at this thread for their daily laughs and many had paid £5 for the pleasure of it. It's really a Tale of Two Cities. Their Theatres need massive sums to be raised to repair them and hover on the brink of financial collapse, a bit like their football club. We on the other hand have both a decent and highly profitable football ground and two decent theatres, both in good condition structurally and financially.

An unfortunate use of words. I'm assuming you meant that he will oversee the marketing of the club?

Cortese was just one man running the club, good at the financial aspects, but not so good when it came to other important aspects of the business. Krueger might be Chairman, but he is one member of a board that comprises other individuals with specialist knowledge of those areas of running a business successfully. We have a finance director and also one to take care of the legal aspects. I see Krueger as being more a figurehead with communication and motivational skills, the sort of person that will do well in attracting corporate hospitality and dealing with the media. Regarding the ability to play hardball with other clubs wishing to buy our players, why should Cortese have the edge over the new incumbents on the board? It is simply a normal situation of supply and demand. We do not wish to sell our best players and don't have to. If you have a commodity like Lallana and Shaw, and several minted glory clubs express interest in buying them, you are in a position of considerable strength, therefore able to command a top price. Of course, when that comes to pass, we will not know that Cortese could have done better, but there is nothing yet to suggest that he could do except his past record, which again was based on top clubs wanting our players that we didn't need to sell.

Good viewing. Aren't we blessed with a great bunch of youngsters? They're all very level-headed, they speak well and generally they are a credit to the academy system that develops them. There are encouraging signs that the conveyor belt will churn out another few diamonds in the coming year or two. It's really nice to have this insight into their development.

And the prize for the poster jumping to the most conclusions speculatively goes to....................... Glasgow Saint. Well done. A truly imaginative effort.

Did I say that anybody had been negative? I don't think so. I suggested that some posters had jumped to conclusions based on their interpretation of what Ralph Kreuger had said. I've nothing against speculation or debate, but there has been very little scope for either based on Kreuger's interview. It is interesting to muse about whether there is more scope for idle speculation when somebody has been really quite expansive about their plans, or whether it would have better to have done a Cortese, who kept his cards close to his chest. I would have thought that when less is said, the greater would be the scope for speculation to follow, but it seems not. Or is it that when greater detail is given, the more attention is applied to what has not been said? He hasn't mentioned his ambitions for us to play in Europe, so that isn't planned. He hasn't talked about keeping players, so they're all up for sale, blah, blah, blah, etc.

I really don't think that Ralph Krueger could have said anything more substantial without certain posters picking it to bits in the minutest detail and trying to read things into it that probably aren't there. There can't be many places where there are people so adept at reading between the lines, interpreting subtle nuances of the use of language to draw conclusions of what might happen if certain things came to pass and then predicting the further consequences of them. I'm perfectly happy to take everything he said at face value and then to wait and see what transpires, before making any judgements on him. Despite the doom and gloom that was predicted when Markus Liebherr died, when Adkins was dismissed, when Cortese left, nothing untoward has happened, but instead there are really positive signs that the club is not for sale and that KL has made longer term plans to take the club forward by appointing a team of directors who seem on the face of it to be seriously talented people.