Wes Tender

But obviously not as good as Bill and Ben, as you get both of them as a package.

I'm not going to dissect it with red ink. I'm only going to say that I think this has run its course and we'll have to agree to differ, accepting I hope on the other side that when some say that there is no alternative to the current set-up, that there is and that when some say that there was only this one course of action that could have been taken, that again there were other options and different degrees of change available. As I said, otherwise it is akin to stating that there is no alternative to either Gordon Brown as PM, or a Labour Government as the only realistic choices to run this country. Your further questions are purely a matter of conjecture, so no response can be made without that being conjecture also. But the main point is that it won't be until February when we see the real picture now, as the January transfer window will have the greatest potential effect on where we go from there, depending on who we see leave for how much money and whether we ourselves are able to bring in (or back to us)somebody with the ability to score goals regularly at one end and others able to firm up the defence at the other. Until then, there isn't much more that can said.

Great news if true. One of our best players by far and head and shoulders above most in terms of quality and usefulness with his versatility.

See above. I admit having my doubts about Pearson when he was first appointed and expressed those doubts at the time. I agree that his record before comnig here wasn't stellar, but he won over my respect and admiration with the way that he went about things and his record with us was better than Poortvliet's over the same period of time. If you believe that my admiration for Pearson has more to do with Lowe dismissing him, then please give me some convincing reasons why Pearson had to be replaced by Poortvliet as the other side of the coin. As I say, I've heard most of the excuses and don't find them convincing. Perhaps you can put a different slant on it. I apologise if it appears that I am dismissive of your comments or use broad sweeping generalisations. I am just trying to debate these things sensibly and intelligently; perhaps as you say, it is just my style that niggles some.

One man's meat is another man's poisson. (sic) The fact that Izzard appeals to you says as much about you as my dislike of him says about me. Whatever that conclusion means.

Agreed. It is fine if you have tall forwards really adept at heading a ball, as there is an even chance that they can defend the high balls in against the rival strikers. But we don't really seem to possess such strikers with both height and heading ability, so as you say, what is the point in keeping them back crowding the box? Also OK with strikers left upfield if they are prepared to run full tilt at the goal as soon as the ball clears to them, but knowing us, we would then hold the balll up in midfield passing it in pretty triangles until the opposition had got back in numbers.

Agreed that it is a very good analysis of where we have been going wrong. Also as others have mentioned we seldom leave a player or two upfield at dead ball situations allowing all of the rival team to fill our penalty area and crowd Davies' movement. There is a time and a place to play hoofball as part of a strategy to overcome some teams and it can be a potent weapon against a strong midfield as part of a team's armoury if there are the players to implement it with a speedy big striker, which is something we don't have currently. However, several teams seem to use it against us and we have little answer to it.

Part of the problem with the youngsters has more to do with them having been thrown into the deep end before some were ready IMO. That was always going to be a problem if they had a knock to their confidence and why it is important that they have one or two experienced old hands next to them to give them the benefit of their experience and put an arm around their shoulders and a few words of encouragement. I don't believe that many fans at the actual match get on their backs though, but perhaps it is best that they don't read any of the internet forums if they have fragile egos. Whereas our opinions might differ, I welcome serious adult debate, a bit of verbal jousting. Nothing at all in your current style that is antagonistic, but it's well written and argued and if anybody wishes to dismiss it with insults, then that reflects more on them than on you.

I agree to a certain extent, but wonder why Jan hasn't addressed our shortcomings yet in those departments; he's had plenty of time. Pearson didn't take long to address our defensive shortcomings and we became a team hard to beat. I also worry about the quality of those players that we have brought in, many of whom seem a total waste of space. And whereas I agree that the football is often attractive, we do seem too one dimensional and incapable of a cutting edge that hurts teams.

Exactly the same as me who was sitting just a few yards away from you. But I held off buying my early bird ST to the last minute and thankfully by then it became clear that Lowe and Wilde would return, so I hesitated still further. Naturally, there was no way that I would renew my ST once they were back and give the bastards the satisfaction of knowing that they had my money up front. Although I have so far attended all home matches, dismal as they have mostly been, I at least have the satisfaction of knowing that when I can't take any more punishment, I can just stop going and won't spend anything further. The minute Lowe goes, I will buy a proportional ST and attend regardless of us winning or losing, along with hopefully many others who don't even attend as I currently do.

Even if Pearson did cost a bit more than the now treble Dutch (which has not been satisfactorily proven), I would still have him back in a flash, as at least he knows what he is doing. In business I often come across fools like Lowe who quibble about the price of something and go for the cheapest option rather than the value one. Mind you, that philosophy never extends to their own personal possessions, their house, their car, their clothes, their holidays etc. It is totally idiotic and you'd think that by a certain stage of their lives that the'd have learned the lessons.

I'm most interested in the removal of Lowe on grounds of club unity. I can't see many denying that he is the biggest obstacle to the unity of the club in its entire history and therefore his replacement would help to heal deep wounds and have most pulling together to help the club. In particular, the change of chairman, manager and playing strategy could probably increase revenues through the turnstiles to aid our parlous financial situation. Salz is a seriously big hitter in the business community and any serious company would love to have him on the board or as chairman. He commands immense respect from most people and has high profile contacts and reputably a demeanour that people warm to rather than the antagonistic manner of our current chairman. Why would he have to bring a big wad with him? Unless we gain serious outside investment, we are stuck with following a similar course of cutting our costs according to our means, but not necessarily in the same way. As to the further composition of the board, I would prefer it not to contain any of the major shareholders, otherwise we would only have them bickering at each other again, which is not constructive. If they insisted on being represented, then it would be imperative that there was a balance between rival groups with somebody like Salz with the casting vote. As to the manager, we are more restricted than previously as to the choices available to us, but I'm of the opinion that even that choice would be greater if Lowe was gone and replaced with a board with the likes of Salz on it. As I said, I have been impressed with the quality of some of the youngsters and with a bit of tinkering, some decent loan signings to cover our deficiencies at the back and the front, we could begin to go places, especially with a united fan base.

Read it again. I said that there was scope for appointing others as chairman from either within the existing board or shareholders or from outside. If an outside appointment were made, then somebody like Salz would do an admirable job, I'm sure. If the appointment was made from amongst the existing board or shareholders, then there would be scope for more infighting or clashing egos and less chance of unification of the fractured fan base. Management wise, then we let go the one that many would have been happy with, but I'd settle for somebody like Billy Davies or similar, even Dowie. Players? I'm not dissatisfied with many we have here already, except that there are obvious improvements that have to be made both to strengthen the defence and increase the potency of the attack. Get rid of all the dross that we have brought in that hasn't yet played much and get somebody like Lucketti at the back again and either one of the three strikers we loaned out, play 4-4-2 at home and 4-5-1 away and we'd be a lot better off IMO.

OK Dean, you've had some extensive experience of English football. Tell Mr. Poortvliet where he's going wrong.

Of course there are alternatives as Chairman. That's like saying that only Gordon Brown can be PM. There are several possible choices within the existing shareholders and indeed from within the existing Board, let alone that an outside Chairman could be appointed. If you really meant to say that there are no realistic choices out there, then you would be closer; is that what you meant to say? As for stating that there is nobody else who would have the support of Barclays, what possible grounds could you have for that remark? Even if you had inside information from working for them on the SLH account, you could not divulge that information on grounds of client confidentiality, so I'm presuming that you know nothing of the sort and are just speculating without grounds. You are even wrong that no amount of protesting would remove Lowe either. If there was a mass boycott with the express intention of getting him off the board, it would achieve the desired result quite quickly, in line with your assessment that Lowe would wish to preserve his shareholding; but he wouldn't have to be chairman to do that. He would only lose it all if we went into administration and naturally he would feel that he was the best person to avoid that situation, although I'm sure that he is not the only person in the World capable of running a second division football club efficiently.

I thought that the combination of Lowe and Wilde back in charge, a manager inexperienced in British football playing the youth team in a formation that seems set in concrete regardless of circumstances was a bizarre combination that will lead ultimately to relegation. I factor in the likelihood that financial circumstances mean that we will have to sell any player who shows quality in a few weeks and that therefore that will be the final nail in the coffin for us. If we do survive, I will be delighted, but the long term prognosis of continuing along that path will certainly be relegation and probably administration, as there is not a indefinite production line of young talent and in any event attendances will fall reducing revenue further when the decent players are gone. Our only hope is a takeover and there doesn't seem to be any sign of that, so beyond that we just have to hope that there are three teams worse than us. I grow ever more doubtful of that too.

Ah. That great fount of all wisdom Eddie Izzard; right up their with the World's great philosophers. So what you have learned from your experience is that because we tried having others running the club and that wasn't entirely successful, we should never attempt to try anybody else again? Lowe will be happy to know that he has managed to grind down some former dissenters who will accept him purely on the basis that they believe that it is worthless attempting to oust him, as whoever takes his place just conceivably could be worse than him.

That was indeed the really pertinent point against JP. Again, although on paper a CV from JP might have appeared better than NP's at first glance, I must say that NP had come across as one of the most erudite and compelling speakers in an interview that I have ever seen in football. Although only based on conjecture, I'd believe that NP would be the one of the two who would command the greater respect from the players and also be the greater motivator. But then again, Lowe wouldn't have been able to work with him because he is his own man and from that perspective it is irrelevant.

Blimey, Sundance. Whereas I don't agree with some of what you say, I must say that your posts since your return have been a lot more measured and reasonable and long may it continue.

Oh well, as far as I can see nobody at Palace has patronised us by saying that we were the best team that they played all season. More likely that as we hardly threatened their goallie all evening that they'd consider us one of the easiest to beat. Until he made that daft mistake to gift them the third goal, I thought that James was playing the best football I have seen from him so far. All that effort for nothing, as he still ended up being a liability rather than an asset. But I just watched numbly the same old rubbish that I have come to expect from our boys. Plenty of good interplay in the middle of the park, but absolutely no end product and the usual naivety in defence. The only good thing about having the match on Sky was that any scouts who couldn't be bothered to go to the match will have decided that the youngest player on the pitch worth buying belonged to Palace and not us.

Again, if you read what I have posted with a greater degree of care than you have shown so far, I never said that only an experienced manager and experienced players would be appropriate. I clearly said that our problems stemmed from having a manager inexperienced in football in this country and at this level together with the replacement of experienced players by naive youngsters. That is not the same as what you think I meant. You are thinking from bias, not from the real facts. Sad but indubitably true.

Me too. Same ole, same ole. All the pretty passing play and no danger in the last third. Total inability to inflict punishment at the other end, but not strong enough to defend our goal.

Is this the brilliant post that I've just picked several holes out of? In many ways, he's just like you, Sundance. Anybody who disagrees with his opinion is blinkered and his opinion is the "truth", whereas anybody who disagrees with it is a sandwich short of a picnic.

This is an internet forum, open for discussion of any topic relating to the club and how it is run. If you only like reading posts disussing the team, then perhaps you would be better off avoiding those relating to the board.

It's really simple. I can only go to home games, so at the beginning of last season I had attended five games by this time of that season where I came away from the stadium elated at a home win, whereas this season I have walked away from the stadium just feeling empty apart from the one win. Some people have very shot memory spans. Burley's performance during that first half of the season was way superior to Poortvliet's as was Pearson's at the end of the season when measured over the same number of games. I'm afraid that the pretty, pretty football and the caring attitude of the players giving their all is becoming increasingly meaningless to me and seemingly numerous others who would appreciate seeing a winning side at home for their hard-earned dosh more than once.