Wes Tender

Surely you contradicted yourself, or can a keeper really be deemed to be great if his kicking and distribution is not as good as it could be? I'd have thought that kicking and distribution were if not as important as saving goals, at least a very integral part of a goalkeeper's requirements.

Was Paul Jones a great keeper? I'd have only rated him as reasonable. I have no qualms whatsoever about granting Niemi great keeper status.

According to Wikepedia, their joint wealth is estimated at about £112 million, so together they are probably worth far more then Lowe, Wilde, Askham, Crouch, Richards and all the other charlatans who are are currently involved on the board or own shares in the club. Even if he used 10% of his wealth, which would be sensible for him not to risk more than that, it is still sufficient to buy us, but not enough to invest in additional players. But if there was any truth in this article, he would be using what we have here already. Whether we'd want him or not is a different matter. Him and say Keegan together, that would be an interesting proposition.

An interesting observation. It was rumoured that it was Wotte that was wanted by Lowe originally if I recall, but as you say, he seems to have faded into the background. And then it appears to be Hockaday who also has some influence in the scheme of things too. What exactly is Wotte's role? Anybody able to fill us in on the hierarchy?

Somebody commented under the article that at least he hadn't grassed up his mates and as a result they haven't been apprehended. But at least some twisted morality of so-called honour amongst thieves has been satisfied, so that's alright then. Presumably because Dyer was guilty of withholding evidence from the Police and so his punishment was increased to a few more hours of community service. B-WP who was also there, escaped punishment altogether because of lack of evidence, although one would have thought that aiding and abetting could have been proven and as he was also there, he too withheld evidence about the identity of the accomplices. Justice in this land is a joke.

I agree with mostly everything you say except for the last paragraph. The real fly in the ointment is indeed the January transfer window and as you and I both agree any player who shines from the start of the season until then is likely to attract attention and being in the precarious financial position we are, we are not realistically able to refuse any reasonable offer. 95% of the clubs might be in this situation, but as it is widely known that we are deep in the financial sh*t, we have a weaker hand then most. Yes, we can continue using the Academy as a feeder to our first team, but inevitably there will come a time when if too many of the cream are bought, there will not be enough ready quality to introduce. In any event, players leaving or coming in on loan is a destabising thing at a crucial stage of the season. It may not happen, but it should be something that we are aware of. As for the last paragraph, there is little else he could have said, as the board are painted into a corner and this is the only route available to them. They have no other options other than selling if anybody wants to buy, or administration.

It has already been well explained that Lowe and Wilde could not sell their shareholdings as nobody came forward to buy them. As for the assertion that it is ridiculous that they allied themselves together to protect their shareholdings, your counter argument that nobody buys shares in a football club to make money on them does not answer my point at all. Neither Lowe nor Wilde bought shares to make money; they bought them to buy power, or in Lowe's case most of his shares were awarded to him in exchange for those owned by him in Secure Leisure. However, because you say that people expect to lose money by investment in football, it does not mean that Wilde or Lowe would want to kiss goodbye to the value of money they have tied up in their shares, which even to them represents a quite substantial amount. So if anybody wishes to believe that they only acted on grounds of their love for the club, please feel free to continue with your fantasy. As for the possibility that either of them could chuck it all in based on the hostility they receive from sections of the fans, I for one would be delighted if they did just that...all of them. Wilde has had many epithets aimed at him since his return. What did he expect? That we would all hail him as the club's saviour? Lowe and Wilde deserve each other and it wouldn't surprise me if one does the dirty on the other in the future as they are both as devious as each other. When they brought out the 50p piece, it was nicknamed the Harold wilson, as it was two faced and many sided. Harold Wilson had nothing on these two.

No. I'm a perfectionist and he falls very far short of the mark. It was Lowe who holed the ship in the first place, to use another nautical metaphor. Cultivating the youth was solely down to not being able to afford paying the wages of those players capable enough of earning decent wages as a result of him holing the ship. And as for the total football, is that what we played against such mighty and illustrious opposition such as Blackpool? I didn't think much of it. It seems a bit hit and miss to me.

Realistic, please, or failing that pessimistic at the very least.

Call me a cynic, but given that both Lowe and the Quisling Wilde were desperate to keep the club afloat in order to protect their shareholdings, having realised that the financial situation was desperate, would they tend to put forward the worst case scenario, or to tint it a little in shades of rosy pink? When it came to projecting revenue from attendances at matches, Lowe may have based his figures on historic attendances from the past couple of seasons in this division, which on the face of it was reasonable. Whether the bankers realised that there was an anti-Lowe/Wilde element who might boycott matches, whether they factored in that some might stay away because several known name players had been replaced by the youngsters, the economic downturn and other things is debateable. If Lowe had provided the bank with worst case scenarios that factored in the current circumstances of attendances at this level and the failure to shift Scacel and Euell and the inability to sell Rasiak and Saganowski, fair enough, we still have some leeway. If on the other hand the bank was expecting a rather better situation, then they are entitled to be a bit peeved and nervous if attendance figures don't improve to the level deemed to be acceptable in order to cover the player situation.

And why does this need a separate thread when there is a perfectly good one already running on this very subject? Is it solely an ego thing?

The only people who are privy to what was agreed with the bank are the board and the bank. However, it is possible to speculate that the continuance of their support may have been based upon certain conditions and contingencies which might not currently be fulfilled. I suspect that the two areas where we fall short are the sale of certain players and the attendance levels. I would be extremely surprised if it was anticipated that players like Scacel and Euell would not have been sold at this stage and there are still funds going out to them in wages instead of cash going in. Also, we have Rasiak and Saganowski out on loan, whereas I suspect it was anticipated that they would also be sold, although at least they are off the wage bill for a while. Surely the business plan put before the bank would also have anticipated attendances at a certain level as that and player costs are the two main factors determining revenue. A shortfall in revenue from player sales and an increase in wage costs because some players didn't want to leave, increases the numbers required through the turnstiles to balance the books. It is clear to me that we are probably well short of that necessary figure of bums on seats, which is worrying. Of course a winning run would increase attendance figures, but other factors such as the economy, having people running the club who are despised by many, selling many well known names and playing unknown youngsters in their place, etc are not helpful in increasing attendances. I suspect that it is things like this that Alpine was alluding to and whereas I have no hard evidence to back up my assumptions, I welcome posters picking holes in my analogy, provided that they have concrete evidence to support their arguments.

I just wish the bloody lot of them would disappear, never to darken our beloved club ever again.....

I didn't back your assertion that players leaving for the Premier league is due to the financial malaise in the football World. That was your slant on things. The players leave for selfish reasons wishing to earn as much money as they can in a short playing career and if there is a situation of supply and demand that dictates that this situation exists, I can't say that I blame them for grabbing the opportunity. Did I think that Lowe could resolve the situation? I don't think that I suggested that, only that he has no real alternative to the path he's chosen. As for those who might take us over, these people can afford to gamble on the possibility of financing losses of the order you mention in the hope that they succeed in getting us to the Premiership which would bring a return of revenue far outweighing the expenditure of getting there. That is something that the current incumbents cannot afford to countenance.

I didn't back your assertion that players leaving for the Premier league is due to the financial malaise in the football World. That was your slant on things. The players leave for selfish reasons wishing to earn as much money as they can in a short playing career and if there is a situation of supply and demand that dictates that this situation exists, I can't say that I blame them for grabbing the opportunity. Did I think that Lowe could resolve the situation? I don't think that I suggested that, only that he has no real alternative to the path he's chosen. As for those who might take us over, these people can afford to gamble on the possibility of financing losses of the order you mention in the hope that they succeed in getting us to the Premiership which would bring a return of revenue far outweighing the expenditure of getting there. That is something that the current incumbents cannot afford to countenance.

In the event of promotion to the Premiership, we would have an extra £60/70 million to play with. It depends on how much of that is ploughed into the team and how much goes on debt repayment. But under those circumstances it could be argued that the nucleus of the team if it stayed intact might just require a bit more quality to supplement it in order to stay up, rather than wholesale changes. We would undoubtedly be a much better prospect for external investment if we were in the Premiership, so that would be a reason for optimism. With regard to falling attendances, I believe that we may have bottomed out at this level regardless of whether we have a policy of selling any youngster who shows promise, providing that we continue to play attractive and committed football. If we a hit winning vein, crowds would increase, but otherwise I think that we seem to have reached our level. But it does appear that it will be a struggle to keep afloat unless we have serious investment coming in, as attendance figures are key.

In the event of promotion to the Premiership, we would have an extra £60/70 million to play with. It depends on how much of that is ploughed into the team and how much goes on debt repayment. But under those circumstances it could be argued that the nucleus of the team if it stayed intact might just require a bit more quality to supplement it in order to stay up, rather than wholesale changes. We would undoubtedly be a much better prospect for external investment if we were in the Premiership, so that would be a reason for optimism. With regard to falling attendances, I believe that we may have bottomed out at this level regardless of whether we have a policy of selling any youngster who shows promise, providing that we continue to play attractive and committed football. If we a hit winning vein, crowds would increase, but otherwise I think that we seem to have reached our level. But it does appear that it will be a struggle to keep afloat unless we have serious investment coming in, as attendance figures are key.

It is not incumbent on me, a mere fan, to suggest solutions to the financial malaise in the football World. But nobody paying their money to watch the game is precluded either from expressing an opinion on what is wrong with the game. We as a club have limited solutions available to us anyway. Either we are taken over by people with serious sums of money available to keep the banks and creditors off our back, or else we persevere with the paupers who currently run us, who have little alternative other than to pursue our current course of playing the youngsters and selling any who prove to be decent players. Thanks for backing my assertion that most of the monies raised from player sales will go into payment of debt, as it reinforces my assertion that unless it is ringfenced into being ploughed back into player purchases, the likelihood is that the quality of the squad is going to eventually deteriorate. On that basis, we will find it increasingly more difficult to ever get out of this division without serious investment. Therefore Wilde is living in cloud cuckoo land believing that we can both sell off decent players AND remain promotion candidates.

Slickmick RinNY, your reply does not fully take account of the implications of the Quisling's suggestion that we are in a position to fight for promotion and yet the only way to survive is to sell players. Granted that if there are signs that we are to be promoted, there will be incentive for players to stay here provided that it is made clear to them that once in the Premiership they will receive pay at a level average to their colleagues there. They may well be happy to stay here on a bit less than the going rate outside of the big clubs because they are settled in this area and have family here. But the fly in the ointment is the January window. If there is clear interest in any player at that time from a Premiership club, it is too early for the player to assess the probability of whether we will definitely achieve promotion and the temptation to play in the top league at vastly increased wage levels would prove too much for most youngsters. On that basis which is a real possibility, it would be difficult to sustain a policy of keeping a squad together who could show enough promise to gain promotion. My feeling is that any monies gained from the sale of the better youngsters will mostly go to debt repayment and on that basis replacements of those players either from the academy or from cheap purchases elsewhere are likely not to be as good as what we have sold.

What? Admit that they were doing it for their own selfish financial ends and not primarily for the good of the club? Of course, there are those who would argue that the two things are mutually conclusive, that what is good for them is good for us. That is the get out clause.

Well, what was he to say? We have a mutual pecuniary interest that overrides all other considerations; we realised that as unpalateable as it was because we both loathe each other, it was nevertheless unavoidable if we were to were to have any chance of avoiding administration and thus losing all of the money we had invested in shares?

The comparison with Crewe was because they are the notable club who have relied for their survival on a production line of promising youngsters who they have had to sell to keep afloat, when clearly they could have progressed upwards had they been able to keep a hold on them. That is a different situation from most other clubs in British football. The comparison with them comes because like them we rely mainly on the sale of youngsters produced by our academy. Apart from one or two, our squad contains hardly any older players and they are no longer saleable commodities.

Well, Mick, in all probability it doesn't. The likelihood is that we will unearth a really good prospect or two from the Academy and start playing them. Scouts and Managers from other teams will notice them and make offers for them which we will have to accept if they are reasonable to good. Much of the money earned through these sales will be ploughed into paying off our debts and the player/s will be replaced by other youngsters/free agent players or ageing journeymen. Unless we are very lucky indeed under these circumstances, we will be unlikely to gain promotion. We will have found our level. Effectively we will be a feeder club along the same lines as Crewe.

Presumably Lowe is actively trying to sell Rasiak, Scacel and Euell, for the simple reason that the club cannot afford their wages. Several other players have gone for the same reason. They having departed and not having arrived at a satisfactory solution with the other players, we are still very strapped for cash. Although too soon to arrive at a definite conclusion it is becoming clear that the numbers through the turnstile will not be sufficient to keep the wolf from the door financially. Other than serious external investment, the only other viable solution to our current predicament is the sale of those players who attract the interest of bigger clubs. The fact that an offer for Lallana was turned down does not suggest that he is not for sale, merely that the price was probably derisory. Within the circumstances we find ourselves, that was probably to be expected. Should any player really excel in the next few months, higher offers will come in for them and unless there has been a significant increase in our revenue, those offers will be accepted in order to avoid administration. If you have any concrete information that the financial situation is not as bed as it is painted or proof that my assertion that our best youngsters will be sold is wrong, then kindly provide that evidence in support of your opinion; because otherwise that is all it is, your opinion. In the same way, many others have expressed the same opnion as me and it is a pity that you must attempt to belittle those opinions with your sneering tone.

Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?