Wes Tender

What surprises me is that various Skates have come on here spouting forth on conspiracy theories about how the whole sorry saga was a scam or a money laundering exercise, that the plan all along was to get the club liquidated so that the land could be developed, that Chainrai intervened either to exact revenge on Gaydamak, or that he was in league with Chainrai from the beginning, etc. The speculation regarding the parts played by the fake sheik and the non-existant sheik, who Fahim's backers were, all adds spice to the mix. What perplexes me, is that there have been all of these leaks and resultant speculation, but yet no investigative journalist has managed to uncover the truth. But surely if somebody did do some digging, the incentive to do so would probably be the biggest scandal in British football in recent history. So how come the scandal of the share trading involving our club at the time of the reverse takeover became the subject of a Panorama programme called "The Share Game", yet the presumably much more scandalous set of affairs that has unfolded at Skatesmouth doesn't seem to be the subject of investigation by a number of journos eager to gain the scoop of their career? Perhaps most Skates are concerned at the people who have been involved in bringing this misfortune onto their club, but secretly content that on the way they had some cup glory and some time in the sunshine of the Premiership that has made it all worthwhile. Otherwise, there would be groups of fans formed to militate for the chain of events to be investigated and for pressure to be applied to the footballing authorities to pass legislation to prevent it happening again. I don't see much evidence of this taking place.

I've arrived at the situation whereby I read the title, thought to myself what the hell has happened now, then noticed who the contributor was. Then my reaction was to wonder what new gripe had surfaced to fuel leftback's spite and bile. And then it was no further surprise to find that smears has somehow concluded that blame must be laid at Cortese's door, as he is the Devil incarnate. So having read the apparent reason behind the thread and the lack of substance to substantiate it, pardon me if I am totally underwhelmed by the whole affair.

Kindly take few moments of your precious time to read the Telegraph article I linked above and then tell us that is only us that are calling you lot cheats.

That remark I made was aimed at PES following this:- He obviously wasn't bright enough to realise that although he had offered up a plausible enough reason for the trail of events that had led to your parlous financial situation, he had at the same time also offered up the main reason why we were perfectly entitled to adopt the high moral ground and the self-righteous indignation, as we had not been run by crooks ourselves.

To all the resident Skates who try to deflect criticism of their poxy, bent club by attempting to tar others with the same brush, perhaps they might benefit from reading this very good article in the Telegraph. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/sport/jeremywilson/100013201/the-saddest-lesson-from-portsmouth-that-reckless-spending-can-be-well-worth-the-gamble/

So to use the comparison made by another of your sidekicks, the motorist caught going at 35 mph, is in no position morally to be critical of the one who was caught doing 120? If you can't work out for yourself why there is moral indignation not only from supporters of this club, but also from practically every other club's supporters, then you had better stop coming on here if you find it so upsetting.

No difference? Not if you won't be magnaminous enough to look beyond the end of your nose there won't be. We arrived in a position whereby we realised that we became insolvent when the bank called in their loan for what was really quite an insignificant amount compared to your debt, which was more like the gross domestic product level of a third World country. You carried on ramping up the debt levels and carried on trading long after it was obvious that you were insolvent, which is illegal. The difference between us is the level of debt involved, but you just carry on ignoring it if that suits your conscience. We played the kids to reduce our outgoings, the same as many other clubs do. It's called cutting your cloth according to one's means. Your various bent owners and bent chief executive preferred the strategy of placing every pound on black at the casino, sh*t or bust. Buy players you couldn't afford from under the noses of rival clubs, pay wages you couldn't afford, proven by not being able to pay them on time. I don't recall us doing anything like that, but had we done so and followed your example, we would have either spent ourselves into remaining in the Premiership, or have been no worse of than you are now in the Championship. Personally, I'm much happier where we are, knowing that I support a club that has honest owners, is run well and within our means. Frankly, I couldn't care a toss whether your club is a division above us, because I know that they are only there because they bankrupted themselves in the process, but without being any further ahead with regard to better owners, better stadium, better fans, etc. I wouldn't swap our position for yours, even if you were still in the Premiership, but I know that with the way that you are carrying on, you will still eventually end up on the scrapheap.

Pfc123 So you didn't get any of those players but still managed the relegation and the administration. Nice one.

How do you know we're not self sufficient? That was the basis of how Markus Liebherr ran his businesses and as he had learnt that frugality from his father, I doubt that the family will be operating in a different manner. There might be additional investment in the infrastructure, as in the training ground facilities, but that would produce a return. In any event, it is all very well comparing the costs of wages against ticket receipts, but we also have additional revenue from merchandising, advertising, television receipts, etc. When we are promoted, then revenue will increase from ticket price increases, increased attendances, television and advertising revenue, merchandising, etc. If the Liebherr family decide to sell up, we will be a very saleable commodity, with no debt, a decent stadium, good training facilities, Jackson's Farm, etc. So thanks for the advice, but I think I'll ignore it and continue to give it large over your poxy small club in its delapidated stadium, your small fan base, your dodgey bent owners and your living beyond your means way of cheating.

I lost affection for the bloke when his team failed to beat the Skates and gifted them the F. A. Cup.

Di*ck-off: The tw*t has obviously been taking lessons in manager-speak from Fergie. When his team loses, it is because of schoolboy errors, but when they score, it was a cracking goal, rather than poor defending by us. And as for the free kick that they conceded for the Fonte goal, Lallana might have been going away from the goal towards the corner, but Oldham's defence already knew full well that he is capable of turning them inside out, nutmegging them, skinning them all ends up and generally making them look like idiots. So D*ck-off, the truth was that Lallana drew the foul because your defenders couldn't handle him, not that it was an error of judgement. As for your conclusion that our second goal was also down to schoolboy errors by your defence, well, it looked to me having watched it on the Football League show (about 49 minutes 25 seconds) very similar to the goal that your lot scored. And Chamberlain really cut through your defence and your post saved you right at the death, or else the win would have been much more comprehensive, especially if the referee had the balls or the attention span to have spotted your cheating and awarded the penalty that we deserved.

Spot on and I mentioned it on the match reaction thread. The ball was much closer to the halfway line when play was stopped, so unless I completely misunderstand the rules, if a drop ball is called for by the referee, it ought to be taken from the spot where play was when the game was stopped. Regarding other comments, D'Urso is poor, but nowhere near the level of crass incompetence displayed by Walton. I think that he is the worst referee I have ever seen and quite how he managed to get to referee Premiership matches is totally beyond me. He doesn't have any relatives on the board that selects the referees, perhaps, as nepotism is the only reason I can think of. As for D'Urso, I lost respect for him when he capitulated when Stam, Keane, Butt, Beckham and Neville objected to the award of a penalty against ManUre and proceeded to bully the little runt.

Agreed. We had possession at the time. Also, I am correct, am I not, that the dropped ball should in any event have been contested where it was when play was stopped? That was much closer to the halfway line than where it was taken. In any event, because play was stopped because of the injury to our player, it would still have been sporting of them to have given the ball back to us.

I think that at the start of the match there was the residue of a hangover from the Huddersfield match. We had dominated Tranmere with such style that being dominated by Huddersfield when attempting to play the same style must have given the team a reality check that affected their nerves. OK, we came out of the blocks playing some good stuff for the first 15 minutes, but then Oldham got our measure and pegged us back and it seemed probable that sitting back like that could allow them to score. At the time of their goal, we were playing like a Pardew team, all of the players bunched up into one half of the pitch again, absolutely no width to stretch the midfield and allow us to play the passing game that had been such a breath of fresh air at Tranmere. Thankfully, Fonte's goal from the set-piece calmed the nerves somewhat and Adkins must have sorted them out at half time, as at least we played with some width in the second half. But a lot of that half was dross until the substitutions were made, bringing on Chamberlain and Barnard for Puncheon and Lambert. Pucheon had had a good enough game up until then and had probably tired himself, but the fresh pair of legs, especially with the speed that Chamberlain commands, was great tactics that put the pressure firmly on Oldham. Barnard also added extra drive and menace in the box, compared with a Lambert still out of sorts, although the shot from Lambert's earlier free kick would have been a goal had their keeper not produced a superb save at the foot of the post. Lallana had a great game, their defence being outwitted by his trickery with the ball time and time again. Often he left them chasing shadows and often they fouled him because they couldn't play the ball. I wonder whether he might have a more devastating effect on our game if he were played in the hole behind the striker/s, because he would cause consternation playing like that in the box, where defenders would be extremely nervous of giving away the penalty. Chamberlain caused that sort of problem, running at their defence. With Pucheon, Lallana and Chamberlain, we have players with the skill to cause problems running into the box and I wonder why we don't make more of that asset. The other points that stood out for me: Davis made a great save around the 11th minute mark and also the most incredible save a few minutes from the end and undoubtedly earned us an extra two points. I had gone down towards the exit after extra time was announced and was right behind the Northam goal when the shot was made. I was incredulous that he managed to tip it round the post, it was a World class save, one of the best I've ever seen him make. On the other hand, he nearly gifted them a goal earlier with his short pass out to Fonte. The referee, D'Urso, showed why he wasn't good enough to referee at the top level, as he certainly wasn't good enough at this level. And the linesmen also made a couple of bad calls for offside as far as I could see. Oldham's no 17 should be given a good talking to about fairness and the spirit of the game. When one of our players was down, we had continued play and were breaking up field towards the half way line. When play was stopped to give attention to our player, D'Urso decided that play should continue with a dropped ball much closer to our box than where we last had possession. Instead of allowing us to win it, Oldham's number 17 contested it and produced a goal threat that would have sparked a riot had they scored from it. I was reasonably confident that we would win, but there were one or two heart in mouth moments. However, there were plenty of signs that we are making progress and provided that we play with width and continue to pass rather than hoof, then the players will have had a boost to their confidence and can maybe go on a run of wins on the back of it.

Having read the latest contributions from the Ho, I'm wondering whether they were just wind-ups, or whether he/she really can be that thick to post such drivel. It wasn't necessary to demolish it with a counter argument as I note that several posters have already done a fine job of exposing it for the gormless rambling that it is.

I saw the title and wondered what new outrage the Skates had committed. Now I'm disappointed that it was only the mindless theft of your rucksack and not even any evidence that a thieving Skate had taken it.

Yes, Tranmere are bottom, because they lost against sides like us. But on the other hand, they are so bad, that they could only manage to draw against Brighton, who are top. They managed to beat Peterborough, who are second. They could only draw against Huddersfield who are fifth and who beat us comprehensively. They beat Bristol Rovers who are 9th and who of course we also beat. They beat Walsall down near the bottom with them and drew against Charlton. But the results against Brighton, Peterborough and Huddersfield in particular, tend to suggest that they aren't entirely the total crap team that you suggest.

I'm not generally one to boo our players, but there is another side to this coin, an opposite point of view that has some credibility. Many who attend football matches do so against a background that they do not have much personal wealth and make financial sacrifices to attend. On the other hand, the majority of football players at our club earn more in a year than most fans will make in many years. The match is entertainment that people pay this hard-earned money to watch. What you are saying, rather insultingly to those who see it differently to you, is that the players have some sort of divine right to take their wages which have paid for in part by the fans, but have no obligation in return to play to the very best of their ability in every match. In other words, you believe that they should take the plaudits but not the brickbats. Puncheon said himself that the booing of his performance by a section of fans had spurred him on to ram the boos down their throats. But if you think that the booing is a bad thing, then presumably it follows in your mind that you would rather there was no booing and therefore the player remains oblivious to his shortcomings and feels no necessity to try harder to earn his mountain of dosh.

Of course we do. Who else, apart from you of course, is capable of supplying so much amusement?

Ah! That prediction from your crystal ball is so clear, isn't it? Pardew would have got us promoted, but Cortese has spoilt it all by replacing him, eh? Pardew had obviously overcome his poor start to the season with the Bristol Rovers match and would have won every ensuing match, whereas Wilkins has ruined it all and given Adkins an almost impossible task. I really feel like going out and topping myself, as the remaining 34 matches give us nowhere near enough time to turn the season around.

Pleased to see that Pardew is keeping to his side of the non-disclosure agreement, even talking with Kevin Davies, although ruggedly handsome isn't how I'd describe him.

So pray do tell us what qualifies you to know for an absolute certainty that nobody in football's corridors of power could give a stuff whether you got promotion back to the Premiership or not. Because unless you can convince us that you have some insider information to justify your opinion, then your opinion has not one iota of extra credibility over the contrary one.

No, we're all enjoying it immensely. Aren't you becoming tired of coming on here when you haven't anything useful to say in defence of your bent club?

In the second sentence, you contradict your first sentence, as Lambert and Fonte also haven't played at the highest level either and arguably Guly has certainly played at a higher level than Lambert and probably Fonte too. Richardson was with Leeds when they were in the Premiership, but that was some years ago now. Of course, your argument is further contradicted in that neither Antonio nor Weigo were first choice names on Pardew's starting line up either. So quite where should these proposed new signings play? You say up front or CM, but we have Lambert, Barnard, Connolly, perhaps Guly or Lallana up front and Schneiderlin, Hammond, Chaplow and Wotton for CM. Admittedly, CM looks as if it could be further strengthened, but we don't seem to be short anywhere else. In fact, as somebody else proved on the pre-Huddersfield match thread, we could put out a perfectly respectable second team that on paper would look stronger than nearly every other team in this division.

Possibly. But then they only managed a draw against them. But Swindon beat Huddersfield, Rochdale thumped them 3-0 and Bristol Rovers beat them too. Hardly the unbeatable team are they?