Wes Tender

Why not, Whitey? There are those on here who express the opinion that Pearson only saved us 20 minutes from the end of the Sheffield United game and won't have it that every other game played up to that time had no bearing on their stupid reasoning.

What the heck has being influential got to do with our overdraft? Salz certainly is an influential person, but mainly because of his prowess as a legal eagle. As such, he has contacts very highly placed in British industry and commerce. As far as I'm aware, nobody has suggested that Salz would be in the position to invest his own money in the club, but he is the sort of person who would easily command a seat on the board of most blue chip companies and would very probably make a very decent non-executive chairman for us, if whoever takes us over wanted a big hitter at the head of the board.

Yes, they will be in a higher division than us next season, but as it stands at this very moment, whether they are better than us, or merely have a better manager than us, able to motivate his players beyond their abilities is debateable, as we are currently in a higher position than them. Not for long though, granted.

I completely agree that the situation is farcical that a different situation should arise dependent on whether a) the holding company is British or foreign or b) the matter involves a Championship side or a Premier league club. Presumably there are also different rules if a club is in other divisions too. The matter of ownership ought to be a complete irrelevance, or there will be scope to have the parent holding company registered overseas, or even in an offshore tax haven like Jersey. Ditto one set of rules for the Premiership and another for the lower divisions is tantamount to one law for the rich and another for the poor. Bloody hypocrites, the entire hierarchy that governs football.

Are Peterborough a better team than us, or do they just have a better manager than Wotte? Discuss.

What would be really nice, would be you getting a bit of perspective. You go ranting on full steam ahead full of bile and vitriol against Crouch who was only in charge for a relatively short time and yet you mention Lowe and Wilde just once and Askham not at all. Nobody is going to take a one sided rant like this seriously and true to form, other Lowe apologists like Manji pile in with their own lopsided rewriting of history even before events are played out. Yes, it would be nice to get rid of the whole lot of them, but let nobody be in no doubt that the entire chain of events was set in motion by Askham and his old board cronies and the journey towards the buffers was made mainly with Lowe's hands on the throttle lever. I thought that a railway analogy was appropriate as he is so fond of trains. Oh, and by the way, your opinion that Wotte is an excellent technical coach, highlights your lack of judgement generally.

Crouch's quote does not conclusively give the FL evidence at all that he has admitted that the club was deliberately set up to avoid the 10 point penalty in the event of us going into administration. What he has stated is merely a correct summary of the facts. All he is doing is reiterating that because of the loophole that the FL stupidly and naively allowed to exist, that we should not be docked the points. And neither should we. I understand that Derby got away with it and that the FL therefore should have had the intelligence to act after that to close the loophole. If they don't and we are penalised, I fully expect them to apply the same punishment on West Ham. Let's see them survive in the Premiership next season starting with -10.

I'm with you all the way on this. I'd certainly help to whip up a campaign to tell Lowe and anybody who thinks that they can get him in with any influence on the board, that they will face a massive boycott that would hopefully force them to think again. I'm happy to attend even in the third division if Lowe is nowhere to be seen, but the minute he came back, I would leave. If there are sufficient fans who thought along the same lines and the resultant fall in revenue forced the club out of existence, then so be it.

He may well have had little input, but how much was output to him? All I'm saying, Nick, is that the situation with Wotte was not really a case of him arriving halfway through the season and not knowing what was Wotte at the club.

But did he come in halfway through the season? He might not have had responsibility for choosing the team match by match until later, but he was certainly here at the beginning of the season and had some influence and input surely in the goings on.

Wasn't that a sweeping generalisation?

Wotte has to go, no two ways about it. He was Poortvliet's right hand man, here through all the dismal failure entailed in that and even though he ditched the bizarre plan of Lowe's of playing a team full of kids and reverted to a formation more attuned to this division and this country, other factors still point to him being out of his depth. Ridiculous statements comparing such crap players as Smith being World class don't help his case. Neither do I believe that he has much in the way of motivational powers or much tactical prowess. But ultimately, regardless of all those other reasons, he was brought here by Lowe to replace Pearson. Because of that, he ought to go, to ram down Lowe's throat that if he wanted to be so petty just because Pearson was Crouch's choice, then he ought to expect that somebody else will do the same to his choice. And the only glimmer of satisfaction that can be obtained from our relegation is that Leicester under Pearson are passing us on the way up as we have fallen into the third division through Lowe's crass stupidity in appointing the incompetant Dutch duo. If it means that the cretinous imbecile has no further imput into our club, along with his cronies, then perhaps relegation might still eventually be a price worth paying.

What a coincidence! I saw an M3 with tinted windows driving through Bentley today. I had no idea where it was headed though.

Brilliant, GM. In lieu of the money, they could instead return a commensurate amount of silver. We don't have much of that in our cabinets at the club.

I doubt that you'd recognise me, but sure that you'd recognise either Lowe or the Quisling. Feel free to kick them squarely in the nuts, if they have any, that is.

No, not at all. Had Lowe not returned with the Quisling, I suspect that many others would have attended, so the blame lies squarely on his shoulders, does it not?

It seems perfectly clear to me what he was saying and I dare say that applies to most others too. We have had alternative revenue streams before, like the Radio station, that made a loss. I presume that you would accept that to be a detrimental revenue stream? Revenue streams that help fund the football team are of course a different matter and those include the ones you mention like corporate hospitality, concerts, etc. But Gemmel I think, was stating an opinion that the most important part of the business should be the football club and maximum effort should be focussed on running that properly. Don't you agree?

As is often the case with you, Jonah, your comprehension of the written word is sometimes a bit lacking; perhaps that is a problem with those who are more used to dealing with figurework all day. Gemmel did not say that we should ignore all other revenue streams. Neither did he make the comment that a revenue stream that helped fund the football team might be detrimental. These are your mistaken interpretations of what he said.

Congratulations, Nigel. I had faith that you could do it, just as I had faith in your ability to have managed here under the restricted circumstances that Lowe and the Quisling presented to the hapless Dutch duo. I am confident that your knowledge of the English game, coupled with your contacts, ability to judge the right sort of player and instill a winning spirit into them, would have meant at least a mid-table finish for us had you stayed. Instead, although entitled to laugh like a drain at our demise and your contrasting success, I would also reckon that despite the way that Lowe treated you, you get no satisfaction from the situation, as you know how much it hurts us the ordinary fans. We applaud your success and I bet that you feel for us too.

Jonah: I don't agree. Kindly go back to the original post by Nineteen and see how many times he refers to Lowe, (and to a lesser extent Wilde) either by name or by saying "he" in the first few paragraphs. Granted that the thread title is about Crouch, but it is obvious from what Nineteen says in that first post that it is not just about Crouch. I don't disagree with much you say in your summary about Crouch's record, but let's have one too from you about Lowe's tenure, in the interests of balance. If you feel unable to manage it, let me know and I'll write it for you, apologising in advance that it will be much longer than yours on Crouch, as Lowe has been here much longer and made many more mistakes. Responding to Nineteen's request for a reply to his question, I think that it has been covered admirably by these three posts highlighted earlier. Quote: Originally Posted by Gemmel Quote: Originally Posted by SP Saint Quote: Originally Posted by John Smith

Are you attempting to excuse your questions on the grounds that they are childish? Hehehe You walked right into that one, Nineteen

A bit like Lowe often saying during the Premiership years that he was quite prepared to stand aside as Chairman if somebody were to come in and put £25 million on the table. But now you reckon that he would be prepared to stand aside as Chairman if Crouch put £2 million on the table? My word, how the mighty are fallen!

Agreed, Frank. It is the counter opinion to Nineteen's assertion that Lowe would have been prepared to move aside to give Crouch the Chair, provided that he stumped up £2 million. There is no evidence for supposing that was the case either, so hopefully you will be prepared to chide Nineteen for suggesting that Lowe would do that, without any evidence to support it.

Agreed, most on here know exactly where you care coming from, but most don't think that you are asking difficult questions at all; most believe that you are asking stupid questions.

A very pertinent and credible point, Dave, that shoots down the entire premise of Nineteen's thread in flames. But Nineteen must be barking if he believes that Lowe would have been prepared to move aside as chairman in favour of Crouch, if Crouch put in enough money to save Lowe's bacon. For that is what it amounts to, saving Lowe's bacon rather than the club, is how Lowe would see it. It is common enough knowledge that Lowe, Wilde and Crouch despise each other and that their clashing egos have been the root cause of the lack of unity and disharmony that has been the main factor in our current demise. Lowe's massive ego would prefer the club to go under so that he can blame Crouch and Wilde as he has been doing, rather than accept that under his watch the club could only be kept afloat by him going cap in hand to somebody like Crouch to help bail him out.