Wes Tender

Really? Most of them are used to playing in front of crowds of a few hundred, so the half empty stadium probably doesn't bother them. There has been little booing of the players or the manager as yet. Could it be that this call for support is more for his benefit than for the players? Every match that we fail to win proves that the poor fella is out of his depth.

What he perhaps doesn't realise is that nobody is having a go at him or the kids. All of the dissent is aimed at Lowe and the Quisling.

I think that you're right and it will be the second option. I'm going tomorrow with my son with the express purpose of expressing my dissatisfaction with Lowe if things go pear shaped during the match.

Believe what you want, but it's totally incorrect. I've often called for all of them to go, except Fulthorpe of course. I have nothing against him as he is an unknown quantity, but would probably be associated with badly needed investment. Are you against him even before he stepped foot in the door? Tut Tut.

So, it's a choice between a gamble that the nuclear option will rid the club of these charlatans for good within a couple of weeks, or else a slow lingering death because poor results at high prices are pushing us slowly towards administration anyway. Administration is not a certainty following a boycott, provided that Lowe and Wilde capitulated promptly. There is even a possibility that they might do that before a boycott if they knew that the strength of feeling was so deeply against them, that they took our intent seriously and other shareholders or the bank put enough pressure on them. But if they obstinately refused to budge and we went down the pan, who would be most to blame? The fans or them? Things are unlikely to improve along the way as long as the present shower are in charge which makes the choice a lot easier.

HeHe. Some by their arrival and some by their departure....to paraphrase I know not who ;-)

How many times?! We are not stuck with what we have got. We can get rid of them. Boycott, boycott, boycott and they will be gone in a couple of weeks.

There is obviously a clear distinction between somebody targetting their bile towards the people running the club and those aiming it at other posters. And do I infer from what you have said that because of his emotive feelings, Sundance responded in a juvenile manner?

Yes, he expressed a valid opinion, although it can clearly be countered by an argument that whether people attend or not is their prerogative if they feel that they are being taken for granted and that what they pay for is not worth it in their opinion. It is their choice. But it is the abusive language that was totally unecessary. As somebody else asked, what does he have to do to earn infraction points?

By the way, Somedunce, what did you think of the Swansea game? We're nearly there, aren't we?

Of course he does, Snowballs. It's in his nature. He's arrogant enough to believe that anybody who has a different opinion to his is an imbecile. Colinjb just made the mistake of putting the emphasis on the wrong part. Whilst other clubs are indeed fortunate enough to have directors who run their clubs because they put large amounts of their own money into those clubs, we all know that Lowe isn't in that class of wealth and can only afford less than 6% as a shareholding. Emphasis should have been placed on what Lowe has taken out of the club over the past decade.

Management changes have been very disruptive in the past, but this is one appointment that is going wrong that Lowe probably won't terminate. But did Lowe consider the disruption of dismissing Pearson? Did Lowe even consider the disruption of the change of power at boardroom level? All very well when Lowe is making the disruptive changes, but there's tut tutting when others suggest it when things are going wrong with the current manager/board.

Morph...nice to see you again. You don't suspect that some sort of vote of no confidence is being prepared for the AGM perhaps?

Both wrong. A mass boycott would see the board forced to resign after one or two matches. If you don't agree, then argue your point against it. It is the only weapon that we have at our disposal as fans, but it is also the most potent weapon of all. An empty ground is the same as an empty restaurant, an empty cinema, empty theatre, etc. No business can carry on with players wages, staff salaries, interest payments and other bills to pay when its income falls well short of what it needs to keep its head above water. It is the gun against their heads that tells them that unless they go quietly, we are prepared to make them go kicking and screaming. They are only both back here, Lowe and the Quisling, to protect their investments. By this action they will have the choice of allowing others to run the club on behalf of ALL shareholders, or their investment will be worthless anyway.

If it forced out Lowe and Wilde it would be a good thing, wouldn't it? Or would you prefer for them to stay until we are either bankrupt, in a lower division, or indeed both?

Well, you two have obviously not seen the threads that started on that subject alone. Or do you not accept that a thread constitutes an anti-Lowe/board comment by itself?

The plans were formed without due consideration being paid to all of the possible shortcomings that might occur. In short, there was no plan B or C. As you rightly say, confidence is key to something like this working, but that confidence can only be built on the back of success, not failure. Confidence demonstrated by the players would have manifested itself in success for the team and in turn increased support by the fans. But exactly the opposite scenario is the result of failure. You and everybody else has identified the defensive frailties as the root of our problems. When I say everybody, I mean everybody except those who could have done something about it, of course. Those are the people who you call the scapegoats and I see no problems with calling them to task for our dismal showing using their failed madcap experiment. With luck, such will be our wrath with those scapegoats that they will do the decent thing and wake up to the fact that their bizarre strategy has not worked and do something to put it right. If they don't then perhaps we will take the necessary steps to rid the club of them. So where is the money coming from to shore up the defence? Well, as it could have come from funds used to buy or loan other players who play midfield and up front, or in goal, when we were already well covered in those positions, then perhaps the directors should dig into their own pockets to buy some defenders to address the situation caused by them. But of course, hell would freeze over before they turned into people putting money into the club rather than being here for their own selfish reasons.

Every single point made a condemnation of playing youngsters before they were ready enough to make the step up and proof positive from the perspective of management also that if you pay peanuts you get monkeys.

Absolutely spot on. There are still those who state that Lowe and Quisling own the club so that they can do what they like and there is nothing that we can do about it. Whilst we were in the Premiership, they were more correct, as the club had the Sky millions and other revenue streams and even if there was a mass boycott of fans then, there was enough money coming in elsewhere to keep us afloat. Besides, we also had players worth a few million each who could have been sold to that end. But now, although the shareholding factions of the Quisling, allied to those of the Lowe axis cannot be outvoted by the other major shareholding groups, we the fans actually hold the whip hand for the first time in years and it is about time that we appraised the board of that situation and told them what we want them to do. If they ignore us, then the time will have come for action to rid the club of them. Under normal circumstances, the majority shareholding faction has the power to choose who is on the board and their egos dictate that it should be them. But it doesn't have to be them at all, as was proven when the Quisling appointed outsiders to run the club. To all those who ask who would run the club if Lowe and his cohorts were ousted from the running of the club, then the answer is that there must be very capable and respected people out there who would be prepared to come in and do the job. Salz is a name that immediately springs to mind as a serious candidate for Chairman. Naturally the major shareholders would have some influence on the appointees, but at least the candidates would have to appeal to a consensus of all the major shareholders. Provided that there is sufficient agreement from the fan base that the time has come to oust the current incumbents from all positions of power in the club, the course of action needed to achieve that end is a mass boycott of matches. As has been pointed out by others, the decision to go will not be Lowe and Wilde's. It will be the Bank who tell them to leave the board and they will also have a say in who comes in to replace them. But in the same way that they were tolerant of the mad experiment in the hope that by some miracle it might work, they are now able to see that it has been a disaster and that a return to a more normal set-up with management attuned to the English game, a club run by competant people who could unify the fans who are the lifeblood of the business, ought to be given a chance to turn things around. I believe that possibly just two matches would be needed to get the desired result. The loss of revenue and the massive publicity that would be generated nationally would be enough to see them gone. At the moment, it is just a case of people talking about it. The idea is just a seed waiting to germinate. It might take another dire loss or two to gain the mass momentum required to get it rolling as a bandwagon. In the meantime, I'm sure that if this idea gains support on the message boards, the club will get a sniff of the level of support for ridding the club of them and if there are any ways that they think that they can placate us in a last ditch attempt to save their bacon, they had better put them into effect sooner rather than later. If this strategy succeeds and the club is rid of Lowe, his cronies and Wilde from positions of influence, then the new people on the board can make a realistic plea for all fans to come back and save the club by attending matches in numbers that will make us financially viable again.

Rather puts into perspective them beating us 5-0 towards the end of the season under Pearson. For all those jokers who used it as a stick to beat Pearson with, it wasn't that long ago.

By the way, where is Somedunce? Isn't he going to tell us all that we're making a big mistake criticising the Golden Duo?

Yes. Honestly. Unreservedly. How did Somedunce slip under your radar? He was also very vocal with those opinions and also had such a loathing of Crouch that one could supect him of being one of Lowe's cronies, as well as Scooby's only mate.

And some homework for you too Bern. Find us any evidence that Pearson walked out on us, unprepared to work to a tight budget.

There is a great deal of merit in what you say here IMO. If an independent and universally respected chairman could be appointed such as Salz, backed by a board comprising people such as Cowan and Hoos, representing the interests of both the Lowe, Crouch and Wilde factions, but without those people having a seat on the board, then there might be some unity that would enable us to go forward together. If such a solution could not be brought about voluntarily, then the lot of them should be forced out by a mass boycott.

I'm going too for that very same reason. If enough others take the same view, we can make enough noise that it could well have an effect.