Wes Tender

The poll asked people to vote on whether they wanted Cortese to stay or go. You voted that you wanted him to go. Therefore it looks a bit odd if you now profess no disappointment that he is staying.

Our manager is loyal; to Cortese.

I expect that you'll be relieved that you won't have to be so imaginative for a while when it comes to conjecture about power game politics at the club, subtle nuances in everything suggested by journos and rumours put about by friends of the club's cleaner's next door neighbour.

Great news. A real relief after a few nail-biting days, but I was reasonably confident that it would all be resolved satisfactorily. For all those who worried that the uncertainty would affect our chances of buying the best players in the summer, the clarification of the support from Katharina Liebherr actually makes that position better than it was.

Oh look! Another thread pointless thead by Barry which has already been covered amply by the other two threads. What's the matter Barry? Suffering from lack of attention syndrome?

Typical of Misguided, taking the debate way off subject just to be snide.

The essence is summed up nicely by the little sign that Harry Truman had on his desk; "The buck stops here" The analogy being that the head of any organisation gets the blame and also the plaudits when things go badly or well. So you're quite right, Frank, that as Lowe got the blame as chairman for mistakes he made in the firing and hiring of managers, inability to attract investment, etc, so should Cortese be credited for those things that he appears to have done successfully too. He has not only attracted the investment in the first instance of Markus Liebherr, but the changes he has brought to the management were certainly vindicated with the dismissal of Pardew and the appointment of Adkins. And although not fully vindicated yet with the appointment of Pochettino, most are content that the signs indicate that the decision might have been another bold move in the right direction. For anyone to suggest that the success of the club was mainly down to the managers and not give credit to the person who appointed them is naive enough, but for Tim to then suggest that the person responsible for bringing to the table one of the wealthiest club owners in English football and to then oversee the appointment of three managers who have brought this level of success, embracing successive promotions from League One to Premiership survival and suggest that it was only an average feat, is insulting. Although he declines to name the chairmen he considers to be above average, I'll add myself to the list of those who consider Cortese to be very much above average for what has been achieved here so far under his stewardship. I accept that there are some instances where he has caused some dissent in his dealings with the media and his public relations skills need honing or delegated to others practised in those arts, but my view is that although he might come across to some as a bastard, he is our bastard and bloody effective with it.

Have you voted yet? Judging by how average you believe Cortese to be and your other comments, I'm expecting a "no" vote any time now.

Oh look! Guided Missile voted for Cortese to go. What a surprise that is. Especially after his pompous lectures about loyalty too. What an example to set his son.

I think that people are free to do whatever they like and if dressing up infuriates the likes of Turkish, that is a good enough reason all by itself.

My understanding from a rumour with an equal probability of having as much substance as this one, was that if The Liebherrs decided to pull out, then Cortese would have others of equal stature to take over from them. To have any real validity, this story would have to come from either Cortese or the Liebherrs and I don't believe that either party would have spoken about this to anybody in the media.

Were Adkins' players too afraid to win games in the Premiership? Is that why we were ahead of both Manchester clubs was it, 2-1 at one stage, when we had only just come up and had our baptism of fire with arguably the hardest opening fixture list in Premiership history? At the time of Adkins' sacking we had a decent run unbeaten, which Poch inherited. We had steadied the ship and the players were scoring freely and had established themselves in the division. Personally my opinion is that Adkins is the better motivator of players and perhaps Poch's team play slightly the more attacking football. I had already stated that lack of depth in the squad was a fundamental reason for us not being placed higher.

I'm rather ambivalent about Poch and remain unconvinced that our current position is higher than Adkins would have got us. Despite the incredible feat of beating the likes of Liverpool, Chelsea and Man City fairly comprehensively, we have failed to beat a handful of lesser sides and hadn't scored in the last three matches before today and that goal came from Puncheon who hadn't featured much under Pochettino, but was favoured by Adkins. We are unlikely to go down because of the quirk that Wigan play Villa on the last day and therefore barring a freak loss of mega proportions against Stoke, we will survive. We could rise in the table if we win and others just above us lose that last match, but it's all ifs and buts and we should not have been relying on others to fail, in order that we secure a higher place that our style of play ought to have justified. We have the basis of a very good team, but lacked the depth to raise ourselves higher at the moment. I do believe that with a few additions in the Summer, we are capable of a finish within the top eight next season. My verdict with one match remaining is that we might as well have stuck with Adkins and parted ways with him at the end of the season for all the difference it would have made.

Based on their performance last season when they had an incredible run towards survival at the end of the season gaining 21 points from 27 and beating Liverpool, Man Utd, Arsenal and Newcastle amongst others, they would stand a great chance of beating Arsenal this season. But their form towards the end of this season doesn't match that from last season, so I agree, although not impossible, the chances of them beating Arsenal are not so good, as they don't have that momentum behind them now.

About Bradley in The News (with translation into the truth under):- You and the Skates are made for each other. You've both found your level.

Sorry Minty, but the fact that posters' positions on matters like this are entrenched should come as no great surprise. People generally do have fixed views when it comes to policy matters where they are supporters of one or other of the major political parties and would probably only be interested in discussing an issue like this on here because of that affiliation. If you were wanting to learn more about the subject (UKIP), then you are unlikely in any event to get a balanced view on here. Neither will you get a balanced view from most of the media, as they all push their own agenda, whether it be from the left or the right. I really don't know where you would get an unbiased view on them from. The only thing to do is to read lots of opinions from both sides of the political spectrum and make your own judgement about how valid the opinions are and what weight they carry in your mind.

Well, he labelled me as a UKIP supporter too, although I'd categorically stated that I was a Conservative. I would be interested in hearing him run through his thought processes that caused him to add two and two together and make five. No doubt it was all based on what I didn't say, what I implied, what I inferred and deduced from what others said.

Thanks for proving conclusively by your summary exactly why it is futile arguing with you. There are two ends to a stick and you unerringly manage to grasp the wrong one every time. Still, I suppose it makes you feel smug, so good for you.

The sound of several thumbs being hit instead of the nails.

You've hit several nails on the head here. A very good summary indeed.

Joennsu. You've worn me down. I really can't be arsed to argue any further with you. We'll just have to agree that as you're a L/liberal and I'm a Conservative there is going to be little consensus on our beliefs regarding taxation. In any event, it isn't possible to get any consistency in your views, as shown by this:-

What a load of twaddle. I pointed out that your effort at applying figures to taxes paid between high earners and low earners was flawed because you hadn't taken account of the threshold below which tax was not levied. Therefore it is obvious that the conclusion you reached about the gap between them was flawed too. So wind your neck in and save your breath over everything else that you have followed up with. I'm not interested in any of it. I'm not a UKIP supporter, but I find them useful in getting we the public a long overdue say on Europe and in the meantime they are useful as an alternative protest vote.

They probably called it Voleur Tax and some Civil Servant in the Revenue misinterpreted it.

Debated into a corner by you? LOL! Wasn't it you who stated that the voting public shouldn't be allowed to vote in Referenda, as they wouldn't know enough about the issue to make a reasoned judgement? There really could be no clearer indication of the contempt that you have for those who hold a different opinion to yours.

Show me the figures that prove that below a 40% tax rate, the taxman will receive a fall in revenue. There is another factor not taken into account when tax rates are reduced. Apart from the likelihood that the tax revenue will increase, there is also the fact that those individuals paying less tax will probably spend that additional money in their pockets in the British economy, not only helping all sorts of businesses, service industries and manufacturers, but also increasing VAT revenue too. But I understand that it is a leap of imagination too far for most of the left to make, envisaging this extra expenditure in the economy increasing employment and thus raising additonal tax revenue. It also probably rankles that the expenditure of that extra money in the pockets of the higher earners can be decided by them and not by bureacrats of the Nanny State.