Wes Tender

That is exactly who I thought it was. I have actually met him on a couple of occasions. I can see where CS is coming from when he says Sundance is Rupert and Nineteen is Cowan, though

And I am equally in no doubt whatsoever that had Crouch remained and therefore by implication Pearson, we would not be in such a parlous state as we currently find ourselves. The bulk of the poor financial situation was caused by the appointees of one Michael Quisling Wilde, who in case it had escaped your notice, is back on the board alonside the other failed former chairman. As also stated by Saint_clark, Crouch had been here a comparatively short time and had taken some steps to address the financial crisis and had the blessing of the bank to continue. It is my contention that had Crouch remained in charge, then Pearson would have achieved a far better set of results than the double Dutch and that also the receipts through the gate would have been far better too. But if you wish to continue deluding yourself, then that is your prerogative; it's a free Country.

I remain to be convinced that Sundance Beast and Nineteen Canteen are the same person. Although both posted rather lenghty posts, as you correctly point out, their style has been quite different, even though the general thrust has been consistent. Sundance was much more arrogant, whereas Nineteen appears to have more humility. Whereas our views are often fairly diametrically opposed, I accept his right to hold those views and have not found the way that he has expressed those views to be objectionable, which one couldn't say about Sundance, who appeared to deliberately set out to be antagonistic.

I agree that the forum has become rather dull, but I also feel that we are in a transitory phase at the moment and perhaps we need to see where we are going before any debate is sparked off as a result. Everything that could be said about the return of Lowe and the Quisling has already been said, as it has been regarding the dismissal of Pearson and the appointment of the double Dutch. Most realise that the return of Lowe and the Quisling has not been a good thing, also that their continued running of the club can never produce the unity required to take us forward. So all we can do now, is wait and see whether the change of manager and reintroduction of a blend of older and younger players playing a more traditionally recognisable type of game plan can (1) keep us in this division (2) keep us afloat financially. Until we know what will happen with those two vital aspects, there is little point in commenting on anything really.

The entire exercise is pointless and as some intelligent cynics have already surmised, it is probably only proposed by the club for one reason. They will have their placemen on this Parliament along with our elected representatives. They will have a say on who is elected to this body, so its impartiality and independence has been severely compromised before it even begins. They will then attempt to toady up to this group. If that fails and the group proves that it has balls, then they will dismiss it, wringing their hands and stating that they tried to be reasonable, they tried to open a dialogue with us, but we were unreceptive. They can even claim under such circumstances that the fans' Parliament is either representative of the fans' opinions if it agrees with the board, or unrepresentative if it does not. In short, we are on a hiding to nothing. Any group representative of the fans' opinions would have one unified message to send to the board; you are not wanted here, you have ruined our club, please leave the running of our club to others who could make a better fist of it than you. Perhaps we ought to go along with this charade, tell them precisely that and disband when they have ignored our wishes, complaining that they do not listen to us, so what is the point of the Parliament?

I would be very interested to hear what it was that you posted over the weekend for which you were admonished. This is an independent forum for the opinions of ordinary fans and nothing should undergo any form of censorship by the club unless it is libellous, racist or sexist or any of the other "ists" that form the current political correctness lobby. Just because you are the club's official historian doesn't mean that you should be disallowed the expression of your own opinion on a forum such as this. This is precisely what would be wrong with the Parliament. The club would try and interfere with any opinion contrary to its own.

I agree that there are thousands of fans out there who do not belong to any of the forums or write letters to the Echo, or ring the phone-ins after matches. But how are their views going to be best represented? Not via this Parliament, that's for sure. Most of them wouldn't know any of the individuals who might become involved unless they are part of the group that have been labelled "the usual suspects" and if they do not bother to express their opinions via those other media, why should they suddenly be giving their input to this Parliament? This so called silent majority nevertheless do make their feelings known to the club indirectly and the club would do well to pay heed to them. If the prices are too high, they cease to attend, while others cease to attend because the football is not to their liking, or we are not winning enough home games. Again, if the replica kit is of poor quality or too expensive, sales figures do reflect the possibility that something is wrong with product sales somewhere or other. I reiterate; the silent majority are not going to contact this Parliament to get over their views if they do not tell the club at the moment what they find wrong with things. Therefore the only way that the club can gauge opinion is through the current channels of the forums, newspaper letters, letters to the club, or post match comments on the radio. As I say, an astute businessman is one who should be able to view criticism and make up their mind as to whether it is extreme or whether it is well reasoned, erudite and sensible. The trouble is, there are many people on here and in the other media who are perfectly intelligent and sensible individuals, but who have expressed the viewpoint that Lowe should resign as Chairman along with the other board members and advertise the posts to independent replacements. If posters like me and others from the other end of the spectrum like Nineteen canteen can find common ground on something like this, then the Board should sit up and take notice of those areas where there is agreement across the spectrum of holders of otherwise diverse views. The trouble is, those in positions of power are not going to relinquish that power, are they? They are motivated by selfish and egotistical reasons and cannot therefore see that the best interests of the club would be served by their departure.

:smt083;)

Look, Lowe, Wilde and the other board members are supposed to be intelligent and sensible business people. Are you suggesting that they are incapable of reading comments from various ends of the spectrum of opinion on a fans' forum and not gain some idea of a concensus? As for your assertion that there is a silent majority on here, what proof do you have of that? How do you know what their opinions are? Anybody who has some opinion on any matter related to the club is free on here to express it. If they fail to do that on here, a discussion forum, how do you propose that their views are reflected in a fans' Parliament? We don't need a fans' Parliament; what we need is a totally independent fan's association, able to speak independently on behalf of the fans. If the board wish to hear our views on matters related to our club, then they can listen to that association, not some trumped up body that they wish to set up to pay lip service to our grouches. We need to reinvent and reinvigorate SISA

If the club wish to know what the average fan is thinking about any number of subjects, all they have to do is to look on forums like this, read their letters in the Echo, or those addressed to them. If there is apathy amongst the fan base, then it is because the club is run by people who have ruined it and we feel helpless to rid ourselves of them. If you believe that this Parliament is anything other than a sop to the fans and will be taken seriously by the board, then you are being naive.

The idea would be a good one for any normal club; but this is not a normal scenario here. As you have stated yourself, the most powerful person associated with the club (through his power base, not his own shareholding) has labelled those fans who have dared to be critical of him as a lunatic fringe. Lowe doesn't take criticism very well, so we are better off organising our own independent group with the ability to speak freely against the board, rather than having an outfit which will end up as the board's poodle. It is plain to most that until Lowe leaves or is forced out, there cannot be unity amongst the fan base. Because this should be the prime motion to come out of such a body as a fan' Parliament, if it is something that the board will not countenance, then the whole exercise is totally futile.

Why not? Hufton, like me, has set out his position which is based on principle. Perhaps you do not understand what that involves. And if the ST has been bought and paid for, there would be a good reason to attend by itself. Anyway, why would it be likely that if Lowe and the Quisling go, things would get worse? As the two of them have been the main architects of our current demise, the likelihood is that things will improve when they have gone.

It very much depends on whether Lowe and the Quisling still have anything to do with the club or not. If they are gone (fingers crossed), I will buy a ST and return to watching home games. If they are still here, I will probably go to some of the more local away games, Yeovil, Brighton, Swindon and maybe even Cheltenham and Bristol Rovers if they asre still in the third next season. If they are relegated, I can always catch them the following year when we are down in the fourth with them.

I read that you weren't there either, Nick. Now although you don't believe that the players couldn't be arsed, you don't know for sure, do you?

I usually pay for my son to go with me. Nickh :- Just going on a fairly widespread view expressed here. I don't read much comment along the lines of we were all over them, or even that the match was very entertaining. The long and short of it is that draws are simply not good enough if we are to survive in this division. I just know that had I gone to the match I would have been walking away from it thinking that firstly it was a waste of money and secondly that there was still only one victory that I had witnessed at St. Marys all season. There is only so much that one can stand and I'm past my limit. When Lowe and the Quisling go, then I will come back and re-establish my diehard credentials, regardless of which division we are in, but at the moment supporting the continuation of their regime isn't diehard, it is crass stupidity and I've had enough of them.

I couldn't really be arsed to go to the match since the last home disappointment, so went over to St Malo on the Ferry from Friday night until getting back this morning. I was totally out of touch all that time and have only just read the result and match reports on here. Didn't miss much, did I? And I must say that the £48 contributed to much more enjoyment over there than the entertainment value that it would have provided over here. I'll have to have serious think about whether I bother to go to any other home games this season as patently if the lads can't to arsed to perform to the best of their ability, I don't see why I ought to contribute to the club's coffers to watch such dross.

So no Nobel prize for failure. But in essence I agree with your view. Just because Lowe was petty enough to dispense with Pearson purely on grounds that he was Crouch's appointment, doesn't mean that anybody else should dispense with Wotte purely on the grounds that Lowe appointed him. If we go down with all guns blazing, then by all means give him a chance of a month or two to see whether he can match Pearson in the third division. If he can't then get someone in who can.

You can have plenty of fun if they do go down, accusing him of being a plastic, whereas you have stuck by your team regardless of the fact that they are no longer at the top level. Anyway, what is he a Skate for, if presumably he is in Fair Oak? Serves him right!

Exactly. The importance of being earnest, another thing that that our very own Quisling would not understand.

It did occur to me that Wilde might have something very appropriate to paraphrase from if Lowe takes us down another division:- "To be relegated once may be regarded as a misfortune. To be relegated twice begins to look like carelessness" (or incompetence)

I did say that you made sensible points and argued your position well, usually in a well-balanced manner and also without spite and malice too.

I haven't changed my tack since then. I still believe that the club will not be unified while Lowe remains and ideally would like all of those who have been involved with the board these past few years to have no place on the board whatsoever, regardless of their shareholding percentage. The posts of Chairman and Chief Excecutive should be advertised forthwith and candidates interviewed by the major shareholders and the chosen ones would have a broad consensus behind them. In the interim, until the end of the season, Crouch should be invited onto the board. As far as I see it, that was what I proposed before and it is still my position.

Yes, I'm pleased that you realise that this is a forum. It's a forum for opinions on every aspect of our football club. When a poster expresses an opinion on any matter, then of course they invite comment on that opinion from others. When somebody makes critical comments about others, then naturally they are inclined to respond as I am doing now to you, especially as you mentioned me by name as somebody you feel it is unworthy of entering a debate with purely, because I was critical of your typos or rushed grammar. Dealing with the cause of your concern, you must realise as an intelligent person that it is not only what one says on a forum, but also the way that it is said that makes an impression, either good or bad, about a poster. Although it is easy with a little assistance from Google to look erudite and well-educated by throwing in lots of pithy quotes from some of the best known authors, playwrights and philosophers, then obviously one is setting oneself up for a fall if there is a misquote or other error in one's source. By and large, those with a good grasp of the English language ought to be able to write something that is spelled correctly and makes good sense grammatically. But that does not mean that the point they are making is a good one, merely that it is conveyed in an intelligible manner. Latitude is given to those who make sensible points and argue their position well, but whose grammar and spelling are sometimes faulty. I don't think Frank will mind me saying that he is the classic example of this. I have no problem at all with others who express views totally the opposite of mine, whether they use poor grammar and spelling or if their use of the language is exemplary, provided that they do so with courtesy and respect for others. You feel that the most insightful and intelligent posts from either viewpoint are made by those with the least time available to check through their posts. This is typical of the sort of view that you express. It is just a feeling you have, possibly meant to inflame those posters you named, but having no actual concrete basis behind it. In fact it would more logically be the case that those who spend more time checking through what they are about to post, can simultaneously check that it makes good sense from the point of view of how it will be comprehended by others. It is possibly a very subtle way of saying "hey, I make typos and don't check my grammar, as I don't have enough time, therefore my opinions are amongst the most insightful and intelligent." Personally, I think that you make this sort of comment because you feel that those you have named are perfectly capable of giving as good as they get from you, so you are making disparaging remarks about us as a defence mechanism.

And yet another three apposite pearls of wisdom from Chesterton:- "Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils; they differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable." "It's not that we don't have enough scoundrels to curse; it's that we don't have enough good men to curse them." "There is a case for telling the truth; there is a case for avoiding the scandal; but there is no possible defense for the man who tells the scandal, but does not tell the truth."

Somebody that educated would know that it was G K Chesterton, not C K. Too many rum punches might produce such a typo though.