Wes Tender

There is plainly something that people can do if they are not happy with the fare that they are currently served and that is stay away. As things stand, whatever their reasons, that is a fact.

You've repeated this several times now Steve, but it doesn't seem to register with some at all for some reason. It seems clear to me that Crouch would have kept him, that having said what he said above, Pearce would have been able to work within similar constraints to those endured by JP, but that he would have had a far better understanding of the British game, what formation would be most productive, how to achieve the optimum balance between youth and experience and probably how to get the team fittest and most motivated too.

Your post is riddled with contradictions. You were against Lowe before, state that we were let down by Wilde and yet somehow the combination of the two of them is somehow acceptable. You might think that Lowe is our best option at the moment and yes you are entitled to your opinion, but he is plainly not the only option; that is a ridiculous thing to say. As I've already said elsewhere, you believe that Poortvliet is doing a good job but 17 games is not enough, whereas of course Pearson had a much better record than Jan, but the guy who you protested against before and who came back to ally himself with the other guy who let us down, had a vision that Jan would be better than Pearson and therefore wouldn't give him the same chance. But it hasn't turned out that way, has it? Already Poortvliet has had more time than those other managers that Lowe sacked if I'm correct, but Lowe's ego won't allow him to give Jan the elbow because that would mean admitting that he was wrong, which cannot be in Lowe's opinion of himself. How many games does Jan's team have to lose, especially at home, where we have the worst record in the division, before you will admit that Jan is totally out of his depth? Come on, put a number against it.

Euell was too honest for his own good. He would have remained on the pitch had he writhed about in agony. When you have idiot referees of Tyro league standard, the sort that prevail in this division, it's the obvious thing to do. It might not be very fair, but neither was his sending off and at least we might have gained some advantage from having a complete team on the pitch, although some might argue that we played better with 10 men. OK then, let's look at it from the perspective that he wouldn't have to miss a game.

No. We need a finisher and a stronger defence. We all know that we had some decent finishers until we loaned them out. Oh and we need a new manager too, as this one is out of his depth.

Every week that passes, it becomes clearer that even if there are three teams worse than us now, there won't be after we have sold any saleable quality in January.

Right here is precisely where the wheels fall off your argument. First the conjecture about what Pearson might or might not be prepared to put up with and then the hypocrisy of stating that JP should be given 2 seasons whilst Pearson got less games than JP has already had whilst not matching Pearson's record. Whilst you're into conjecture, I might as well chip in. Would we be higher up the table with Crouch as Chairman having made the same economies that Lowe has made, but with Pearson in charge of the team? Almost certainly YES. See what I did there? Lowe took us down the first time and he and Poortvliet are going to take us down again. If you can't see that and wish to place the blame on the fans, then it is the equivalent of the Captain of the Titanic blaming the iceberg.

Time you were Gonville

They obviously are crap judges of what makes a decent team. We might be one decent striker away from a decent team up front (John, Rasiak have proved perfectly proficient in those roles and I'm sure that Saganowski could have netted today too), but if those Wolves fans did not notice the lightweight, leaking defence, I'm afraid I have no respect for their opinions.

No it wasn't. They were also poor in the first half too, when they were two goals up. I was sat virtually at the aisle that separated them from us. Worst set of fans I can remember considering their league position.

The fault is not with the team, but with the manager. Why is that time and time again we put out this stupid formation? The lone striker simply isn't good enough or strong enough to carry it off. At home we should be playing 4-4-2. I am just totally ****ed off with walking away from that stadium with no points again. Yes, it was an entertaining game and thankfully it only cost me £24, as my son had better things to do. Is there one single game that we have played this season where we were outstanding for 90 minutes? I can't think of one. Why when we have a weak defence do we not start Perry to begin with? Does it spoil the team stats by raising the average age too much? As usual, the two goals conceded were utterly naive. The second came from a mistake with a headed backpass which their player latched on to. Yes, I think that the sending off of Euell was harsh, the referee should have blown for the tackle before and had failed to stamp his authority on the game, causing him to go totally over the top in order to re-establish himself. The penalty call looked nailed on to me, but the referee seemed determined to give us nothing except trouble. During the second half, I agree totally that we were by far the better team, had a majority of the possession and never looked the team with a player short. The support in the stadium was absolutely fantastic. Wolves support was the poorest so far this season despite the numbers they brought. There they are, top of the league and attempting to out quiet the Chapel end. Pathetic! As hard as the players played, as good as the support was, as entertaining as the game was, after everything, it was still another home defeat. The manager is out of his depth and persists in playing the wrong players and the wrong formation. We have loaned out the players who would have been capable of putting the goals past Wolves to give us all three points today. Just when are the real protests going to start against the board? IMO they're well overdue. Next home match, perhaps?

Phil, I know that you're a true fan and if not able to actually attend matches because of distance, you listen to every match you can, wishing that you were there. But your circumstances are different to those of any fan who are able to attend because they live close enough, or indeed could attend because they can afford it. Those fans have a dilemma that you don't. You can chose not to listen or watch the match on the media, but what difference does that make to anything effecting the club? You might personally miss hearing or seeing every kick and pass, but if you don't watch, who knows any different? Those who could attend can make choices that do have an impact on the club financially by their non-attendance, or they can take part in protests there if they choose which might also have some sort of effect. What they choose to do, either helpful or not, is their personal choice and their sacrifice is often much greater, involving such aspects as personal principles. For myself, I'll certainly cheer on the team at the top of my voice, always providing that they put in maximum effort, of course. On the other hand, if we are getting thumped by Wolves, I'll certainly join in with any protests against the board or Lowe that begin.

I bet you didn't imagine that comment would come back so quickly to bite you on the bum! I'm almost envying Spurs at the moment.

Sundance only has one other post today, I think. He used two within a few posts of each other to respond to two posts, whereas anybody with any intelligence if restricted to three posts a day would have lumped the two together as they were on the same thread.

And then if I recall correctly, Askham was in charge of setting the remuneration and expenses/consultation fees of the directors, i.e, how much gravy was to be loaded on board the train.

It isn't all together a surprise, Phil. The last match was televised, whereas this is a match at the proper time of 3pm on a Saturday afternoon. It is also against the team at the top of the table too. There are probably many reasons for a marginally better turnout today. Who knows, there may be elements that some want to witness a top team tearing us apart like the morbid curiosity that a multi-car crash brings, some might have decided that if we lose big time that the time has come for a mass protest at the game and want to be there to be part of it. Like my son, I'm also very fed up of witnessing just one league home win. I'm seriously thinking of stopping going if we lose today, at least that's how I feel this morning. I'd have more reason to go if he was going too. Who knows, he might miss being there and want to go the next time.

To be fair, SES, Sundance was only responding to what Gordon Mockles had written. God knows why I'm coming to his defence after some of the guff he's posted about me!

I'll be there, but my son told me not to get him a ticket as he has other things to do that will give him more pleasure, given our home record of only one win. When I bought my ticket yesterday afternoon, they said that there was 15500 sold.

The value of those shares at a nominal value of £1 rocketed at the time of the reverse takeover to the extent that for an investment of a mere £2000/£2500 or so, they would have become millionaires had they sold them immediately afterwards. Some of those shareholders were cronies working alongside Askham or business associates of his company and were granted the opportunity of buying into these nominal value shares, so must have a huge debt of gratitude to him. At the time of the reverse takeover, it was rumoured that it was completed with undue haste because there were rival consortia preparing to bid for the club. There were some very unethical decisions made regarding the shares at that time and I suspect that there are many skeletons rattling around in their cupboards. They probably have a gentlemens' agreement to all stick together in case some of these skeletons are revealed, but I use the word gentlemen very loosely, as it certainly doesn't fit the proper usage defining people of honour and integrity IMO.

Just because you're a Lowe Luvvie, doesn't mean that anybody who disagrees with your opinion is a Lowe hater. Did you see what I did there? This labelling of posters just because their opinions are polarised is becoming tiresome. Sufficient to say that the individual who is responsible for polarising these opinions is the the most divisive in the club's long history.

Exactly. Considering the 180 degree turn that Wilde made cosying up to Lowe after ousting him, he is hardly the shining beacon of moral rectitude himself, is he? And unless I missed it, he didn't publish his reasons for this about turn either.

Both very perceptive posts that strike a chord with me and I'm sure many others.

I was talking about this club. Of course, feel free to widen the scope of the debate to cover other clubs if you like. Indeed why stop at clubs in this country?

Did you not notice something very relevant in what you just said? When Lowe wasn't here, you said that we moaned about Burley. That is precisely the point. Before we became a PLC, before the reverse takevover, was there ever much debate about the Chairman or the board? Not that I'm aware of. Half the fans couldn't even tell you who the chairman was at that time.

What a shame that Duncan has decided not to post on here, as his opinions always struck some resonance with my own feelings about how the club has been mismanaged this past decade or so. But what is this? The reappearance of Somedunce and Jonah too, on the same thread? It's almost as if Lowe had picked up the phone to them and said, listen chaps, that historian chap is being rather nasty about me, could you go on that forum thing and try and level the playing field a bit, you know, try and put our side of things over. The bounder says that I'm devisive, but he obviously hasn't the first idea. Why, I even settled my differences with that toady Wilde and allowed him back at the top table with no animosity. Let bygones be bygones, I say. Why are those oiks who follow this wretched club so damned small-minded that they have to constantly harp on about things like this? If anybody wants to come in a put £25 million on the table, the Chair is theirs...