Wes Tender

OK. So onwards and downwards it is then.

The original shares were for a nominal value of £1 since the very early days of the club. The biggest shareholder I think was Askham if I'm not mistaken and I believe he held 2500 shares costing him just £2500. Now, I don't know about you, but I could easily write a cheque for £2500 and not bat an eyelid. And I would gladly have done that if I knew that when the club became a PLC, the value of those shares would rocket to something like £1.5 million. I hope that I have recalled those figures accurately. Askham called it an unfortunate side effect of the reverse takeover and of course, it had no influence at all on the board's decision to become a PLC

I've actually met him a couple of times, though he wouldn't know me from Adam. As you say, nothing wrong with him on one to one basis. It's just his association with Askham, the dodgey £1 share dealings, the reverse takeover, why he keeps Lowe in power and all that mullarkey that I'm not keen about

And likewise, a good post, Sundance, even if we have differences of opinion on some things.

I personally continue to go to home matches, but for how long remains to be seen. I tire of attending to watch us lose yet again. I don't blame others who have decided not to attend, as that is their prerogative. It is up to the board to try and establish why attendances are falling and address those reasons accordingly.

We always learn things from previous games and utitilise that information to good effect in the next game. So our strategy is to get another influential player red-carded, but this time even earlier in the game, so that we have even more time to score, as that is what we need to find the net. Then the sense of injustice will fire the lads to greater heights of effort and you will have a torrid time of it from then on. But I shouldn't worry as a Reading supporter. The only guy capable of scoring at the moment is the lad we have on loan from you and he isn't playing.

Thanks for posting the link of that piece by Michael Richards to read again. It was quite instructive in light of developments since. Some interesting little snippets.... Rupert would genuinely, I believe, step down if he believed it was in the best interests of the club, as would all of us who have been involved as both executives and non executives over the years. Time to step down now then, Rupert and cronies, in the best interests of the club. It is the only course available that will unify the club. Your very presence has caused the most division in our long history. We have all experienced the tough decisions in deciding we could not afford the team strengthening we would like to see as fans. Not much changed there, then. The proposed "new board" might prove to be very successful given time but we do not have that time. We didn't have the time then and we don't have it now either, although this is supposed to be a long term strategy, long term being until the january sales, when it is back to square one again. The success of Southampton Football Club over this past many years has been through evolution not revolution. So what was the trumpet fanfare about this time around when Lowe introduced the "revolutionary" new total football concept? Bit of an about turn, wasn't it? It may be that changes are needed but we should not chop the head off' the club and replace it with unknown quantities in this vital year. So we chop off the head metaphorically by replacing both the former board and their manager and install instead two former failed chairmen and two foreign coaches with nil experience in English football, let alone at this level, sell off the experienced players and replace them with the club's youth team. An ideal alliance of a known quantity on the board, but with a record of failure, allied with the unknown quantities in management and the team. Brilliant! Wouldn't it be nice to have Mike Richard's updated perspective on all this? Or perhaps he is a poster on here who already has given his current opinions. I wonder what his user name might be?

Although only youngsters, we are talking about professional footballers here. I'm assuming that their understanding of the game is that playing formations are not set in concrete, that a manager can discuss tactics with them before a game and make changes to the formation which they can implement. Surely they understand the concept of playing wing backs, playing with a sweeper, one in the hole, etc. and that if one or two players are instructed to play in a certain position, or to mark a particular player, they can do that. If not, then they shouldn't be playing football at this level. The proposition that they would be uncomfortable playing 4-4-2 having attempted to play so called total football, is bizarre. Regarding Billy Davies, the original suggestion that he is only capable of playing teams with a route one strategy having sparked this particular discussion, I think that this is a misconception. I believe that BD is a pragmatical manager, well able to make the best of whatever he has available to him and play to their strengths.

No, we're not that stupid and realise that what is on the OS is propaganda. The people who are stupid are those who sanction this crap on the OS believing as they obviously do that we are stupid enough to believe it. Yes, it is a reasonable achievement picking up points on the road with this inexperienced manager and this team of naive and inexperienced youngsters. What is exactly the opposite is the level of failure of the same bunch of players at home matches where they have the advantage of home support, which has generally been good. On the OS, Jan has attempted to explain that the youngsters feel too great a burden of expectation on their shoulders, but he has no answer of what he needs to do about it. It will be interesting to ponder what slant the OS will put on the sale of any half decent youngster in January. Presumably they will say that had we the fans turned out in greater numbers, these players could have been retained. It is all our fault.

That'll be after the few quality players have been sold then...

The same team might improve if it was allowed to play together for more than a couple of matches. But I'm fast coming to the conclusion that JP tinkers with it as much as Burley did.

You really are having a laugh, aren't you? That's 6 players who you reckon are better than any other 6 outside the Premiership. I'd say that Kelvin Davies was arguably Premiership standard, so that makes 7. Even accepting that the other 4 players we could put out as a team were average, although of course you have missed out Scacel, could you kindly explain to me why we are virtually the bottom team in the division? But Lallana, Surman and Schneiderlin will be gone in January, possibly Scacel too. McGoldrick isn't anything above average in this division, so shouldn't be on your list, Olly Lancashire shouldn't be either. He gets himself sent off every other game. What will happen to the team after January. We're just above the drop zone currently with all this supposed talent. Where will we be when they've gone? Relegated, that's where. There can be no long term plan when you are forced to sell your best players half way through a season. As for these foreigners who couldn't give a stuff for SFC, you mean Schneiderlin, Gasmi and Svensson currently and players like Claus previously, presumably?

This has all been answered before by me and others. Who would I replace Lowe with? A board of directors independent of the major shareholders, with somebody like Salz as Chairman for a start. I'm sure there must be others equally capable and respected. They would have the moral authority to make a rallying cry to the supporters that Lowe/Wilde cannot and the deeply divisive element would be gone from running the club. What would they do differently? Well, for a start they might appoint a manager who knows the English game and would play it, instead of the bizarre experimental stuff we have had to endure so far this season. So a formation that the players are comfortable with, combined with a team consisting of a mix of youth and experience. And again, as others are getting fed up of pointing out, it doesn't seem necessary to have gotten rid of all three of John, Rasiak and Saganowski when we have obviously spent money or wages on getting in all those other players. Unless you can prove to me that we couldn't have had fewer of them and afforded at least one decent proven striker that we had previously on our books, then I will continue to believe that we have mucked things up royally by this foolish strategy.

The essence of good propaganda is that it has to have an element of credibility, so that the more suggestable readers or listeners can feel some resonance with it. But the downfall of propaganda is when it loses its credibility and once that situation has arrived, then everybody is dismissive of it and suspects that the entire message is devoid of facts, even if some wasn't. That is the stage that most have reached with both the OS and the Daily Echo.

We occasionally have our differences of opinion, but on this matter we see eye to eye. I have seen all the home games and can't remember when we have played well for both halves. As Jan has said before, we would be awesome if we played for 90 minutes as we did the first/second half (delete as appropriate). Well, why can't they? That last game, we had an advantage of possession and it was a joy to watch, all except for one thing. I found myself becoming frustrated at the sideways and backwards passing and found myself shouting "forward" and "attack". Perhaps we ought to get some chants of those two words going in the hope that the message gets through to the players that we will not score many goals unless we get the ball into the box.

What you're talking about here is a spine, isn't it? It's absolutely fundamental isn't it? You can see it, I can see it, nearly everybody can see it except those who pick the team and buy or loan the players.

Richards spends much of his time on Guernsey, although I wouldn't know whether he is a tax exile there. I well recall you posting after the Wilde proposed EGM when Lowe was ousted that you predicted that Lowe might be back some day unless somebody bought his and his cronies' shares. It didn't seem likely at the time, but you were right. Regrettably, the current situation is no laughing matter for us and I doubt whether Lowe will be laughing much when he loses all his shareholdings when we go belly up.

Lowe shouldn't have appointed the coach in the first place.

I hope that when the referee sees the replays of that decision he will be suitably ashamed at his gross incompetance.

The amazing football you talk about is all in midfield. As such, there is little end product up front with one striker and the defence is weak too. Therefore we have the worst home record of any team in the division. Does it not occur that some teams allow us to play this pretty football to our hearts' content, safe in the knowledge that they can close us down comfortably in the final third, or even if we get the ball in the box, our strikers are crap at this level? On the other hand, with the formation we play, once the opposing team get the ball, they all know that they can exploit our defensive weaknesses out wide and at set pieces, where the youngsters are too naive without an older, more experienced defender to help them hold their shape and discipline. Frankly, for myself, I am getting heartily fed up with paying to watch every home match so far and coming away celebrating just one win in the division, regardless of the prowess of the opposition. Sod the pretty football; give me some winning football.

Unless I have it totally wrong with how things operate with a PLC AGM, the board that became operational when Lowe and Wilde cosied up together has to be voted in at the AGM, right? Also, if it is proposed that there will be further changes to the board, surely those changes have to be notified before the AGM and sent to all shareholders at the same time as the notification of the AGM and that there be a period wherein counter proposals can be put forward. Do I have that right? Therefore, the proposal by Lowe's group that his toady Richards be Chairman of the Football Board instead of Wilde isn't something that will appear as if by magic out of the blue on the day of the AGM, or is the AGM purely for the PLC, a totally separate entity to the football board and once elected, able to do what it likes about the football board? Perhaps somebody expert in these matters can explain. If it were something that had to be proposed beforehand, then of course all the shareholders would be in the know and able to counteract it, or indeed put forward their own proposals to be voted on. For those who are old enough to remember, the TV series that is closer than Dallas with the goings on here is "The Power Game"

As stated, the debate as to whether we would have been better off with Peason or JP has to be pure conjecture. What is an irrefutable fact is that the disruption and disunity caused by the return of the despised Lowe, allied to the other failed chairman and the bizarre experiment they are trying to implement, is the biggest single cause of our current situation.

It is not a realistic analysis at all, more a report from The Department of Guesswork. It isn't even conclusive that all of the list of names of players that would have to be released is accurate. Crouch's priorities might have retained one or two of them, although the pressures would have been to make similar cuts. Patently there would have been more scope had we not spent money on bringing in some of those replacements who seem to be more of a gamble as some were injured, others unknown quantities. But overall, JP has often demonstrated that he is out of his depth at this level with both his choice of personnel, but more particularly his one dimensional formation. So there is no realistic analysis, as everything has to be based on conjecture and opinion. In my opinion, Pearson would have been a lot less naive than Poortvliet and therefore would have achieved more success as a result.

So you think that the extra bums on seats will help us keep the better players? You don't reckon that the extra cash generated will go into paying off some of the overdraught then? You think that when a Premiership club makes an offer of several times their wages and the opportunity of playing in the top division, the few quality players we have will tell them to go and get lost? Get real. As we stand, we're the Crewe of this division - at the moment. When we've sold those players it is inevitable that there will a dilution of quality in the team even from the current low levels and relegation will follow next season even if we avoid it this season. A takeover is the only solution and that seems unlikely.

The usual arrogance, inferring that anybody who objects to the current regime and voices their concerns at a match must somehow be abnormal. The regrettable truth is that many more who undoubtedly would have joined in with the protests were not there, having decided that they've had enough. And you actually believe that it will be the vitriol that gets us relegated to the third division? I thought that you had more intelligence. Personally, I'd have believed that it depended more on factors such as winning or losing matches, unless of course you meant that we would be relegated because we were in administration. And whose fault is that? Oh yes; the fans. They're the idiots who stayed away in sufficient numbers when they should have acted like the mindless sheep you believe them to be, paying their hard-earned cash regardless of whether they can afford it, regardless of whether it is value, regardless of what their other thoughts are about the chairman, the manager, the team. But of course, that is what the board expect of us, that they can do anything they like and we will blindly follow because we are fans, not like other customers who vote with their feet. Well, they are obviously mistaken about a section of those fans. Who are the Neanderthals? Those who blindly follow regardless, or those who have a mind of their own and make their own choices and judgements and have the guts to act on them?