Wes Tender

Regarding Pulis Jnr, we have the evidence of opinion both of the Stoke City fans and the fact that he had not exactly set the World alight at other clubs on loan either. With Holmes, he was a bit of a prodigy early on when he started, tipped for great things. He failed to achieve that potential with Derby, so was surplus to requirements. He doesn't look a bad player and perhaps we can spark that initial potential to reignite. But he was several classes above Pulis to begin with. Danny Guthrie was a decent prospect from Liverpool's youth policy and again worth having here on loan. He is currently playing in the Premiership, which is probably more than Pulis Jnr. ever will.

John had been in a situation of having to fight for his place against others for quite some time, but he was fighting for one of two places. Now arguably there is only one place up for grabs. As in most clubs, the surfeit of options for most positions is a good thing as it encourages competition. But the situation we have here now is not like that at all. We have players knowing that they are surplus to requirments solely because they are good enough to command a higher wage. They are shunned by us and hear the foreign manager telling us that he wants to sign a proven goalscorer, but he doesn't want them. The whole thing is not logical, as a proven goalscorer by definition is both in demand or costly as a result, unless he is a loan player from a top team full of other talent with such prowess. So why would they want their players to come here to be amongst youngsters? And would they be paying a decent whack of their wages to make it affordable to us?

We obviously played crap against the other Bristol team too, eh? When they were top of the table, heading for automatic promotion, weren't they? The fact is that we had probably the most difficult run in of any team in the division and yet Pearson managed to turn around a demoralised team that was leaking like a sieve into one that was hard to break down and gaining in confidence and belief. But if you want to believe that this current team is fantastic and the one we had at the end of the season was crap, then don't let me attempt to spoil your little fantasy. Time will tell whether this team will continue to play decent football or not for a full season, whereas Pearson never had the chance to prove what he could do. IMO there was not that much wrong with those players that a bit of motivation and belief could not fix and there were signs that they were improving those aspects under Pearson. But of course, it is all irrelevant, as they could not be kept anyway, as we are stoney broke.

Either - or? We can either vent our fury at the board or support the players? I wonder if you'd care to have a little think about it and explain to me why we can't do both? You obviously only have enough energy or indeed imagination to do the one thing, whereas there are others capable of doing both.

We aren't seriously after any replacements as we can't afford them, not unless they are going to play for peanuts. This is just a smokescreen to try and camouflage the situation that we are totally broke and that any club can offer 2/6p for any of our players and we will bite their hand off. Great for the confidence of John and McGoldrick that we need a striker who can score goals. Presumably somebody with this proven ability would cost quite a bit in wages.

Are these the professionals akin to those who take your money and then f*ck you?

I must say that I agree with the general thrust of your arguments that the very steps we are taking to keep the ship afloat are the very ones will which end up sinking it. The measures are merely a delaying tactic, hoping that something will turn up, rather like Mr Micawber. Our expenditure is metaphorically 20/6d against our income of 20 shillings and the result will be misery. Everything is reliant on people in charge of the team who have no experience of football in this country, let alone in this division. It is reliant on mainly youngsters employing a new system of play at a level that they have not previously attained by natural progression through the ranks. It also relies heavily on succeeding to generate income through the turnstiles. If it falters, not only do the youngsters become demotivated and have their confidence knocked, but the attendances will drop further making our solvency even less sustainable. As John rightly says, the end result of this scenario is ultimately administration, especially if it also involves relegation in the process. If we are incredibly lucky with injuries and suspensions, our barebones squad might just pull it off, gain confidence and ability and get us mid table, but the gamble is massive given the hand that has been dealt to us by the people running us these past few seasons. We should not harbour unrealistic hopes of this working out, unless we are thrown a lifebelt by people with real money taking us over.

No, not strictly true. But said against a background that they have been discarded by JP on Lowe's instructions and some on here have made judgements against them as a knee-jerk reaction because of it. Half decent player leaves us and five minutes later somebody says good riddance, he was crap. Just look at the Andrew Davies thread for instance. Some say that we won't miss him because we have plenty of cover for him. Yes, with inexperienced youth team kids or older potential crocks. Under the circumstances, I can't say I blame players like Scacel or Euell for not wanting to go elsewhere for less money than they get here when they have contracts allowing them to stay. The whole thing has been mismanaged IMO.

Well, it coincides pretty well with what Nigel Pearson played against Sheffield United in our last game, one of the best teams in the league. That day, the team was R Wright, Wright, Powell, Perry, Surman, Viafara, Safri, Idiakez, (Licka) Euell, Saganowski (Lallana) John. It was a team capable of scoring three goals against decent opposition whilst conceding two. At least they have done better than our current team in that respect, scoring more than they concede. But then it seems to me that Pearson was a good motivator of those older players, whilst the current regime has told those that remain that they are surplus to requirements, which is hardly the best way to motivate people, is it?

This is either Sundance Beast or Leon Crouch If it's Leon, he'll be apoplectic with rage. If it was Sundance he'll be praising the Lowe regime for saving on overtime rates and electricity for the lighting.

I've been raging mad that this Shilph Shetty b*tch has been keeping Lowe off the top of the recent stats. So angry with her that I gave her a good pummelling....DOH!

A clear signal is sent out that nobody in our team or on our books is sacrosanct, anybody and everybody is up for grabs. Bargain prices are the order of the day, no reasonable offer refused. So much for Lowe's fabled negotiating powers; he's the epitomy of the person who knows the price of everything, but the value of nothing. There is absolutely no purpose in trying to build a team around any particular players, as if they are worthy of forming the backbone of our team, others will want them too. But they can always be replaced with some other youngster until he gets bought, to be replaced with ever younger or less experienced youngsters until we run out of them. Alternatively, we can replace some with ever older journeymen who are increasingly surplus to requirements anywhere else. By that time, we will be a typical 3rd division team and that is the league that we will be playing in too. And Lowe will be charging the same prices to watch them, although the attendance numbers will have dropped to about 8/9000 as a result.

If they are a Stockbrokers or an Investment House, it isn't very encouraging to their prospective clientele that they are making a loss, is it? I'd rather have my money with an outfit whose primary aim was to maximise profits, not minimise losses, Scabby, old chap.

....and his hair is longer too.

Lighten up. It's a great opportunity for a bit of gallows humour.

There are a couple of managers in the local Tyro league who would do it for half of what JP and Wotte are earning. That's got to be attractive to Mr "never mind the quality, feel the width" Lowe. There are further advantages too. They are used to managing youngsters in this country, although of course at a lower level and if the Dutch total football experiment has failed, they can easily revert the team to the typical English style of play that everybody is comfortable with. Also they have the contacts that can produce a conveyor belt of cheap local youngsters who would bleed red and white; apart from those who have since taken to following Arsenal, Liverpool, ManUre and Chelski and maybe even the Skates of course.

Even if it were some youngster that we have never heard of, it rather crosses over assertions that have been made that our emphasis on our academy being the place to come as we will play the youngsters when they are deemed to be ready, regardless of age, eh? So apparently we are not even more attractive than Reading, who are now in the same division as us and this must be a kick in the nuts for us to have a promising youngster leave us for a club who are not a glory team by some distance.

That seems a half decent team with a blend of youth and experience. And just to think that they can be watched for free whilst playing at home, whereas their counterparts in the first team will cost £25 to watch;) And these are precisely the lads who will be introduced into the first team over the next few months as one by one the youngsters who show any promise at all will depart for pastures greener.

I think that the difference would be that hopefully the new people would actually bring real investment to the club rather than just buying shares. Neither Lowe, Wilde nor Crouch have brought much in the way of actually investing their own money into the club and had they done so, they would possibly be given a bit more latitude now. If the new people were to be able to pay of our loans so that we did not have the bank or mortgage holders gun pointed at our head, that would be a major worry lifted. It would enable us to operate as the board felt fit and we would not be in the position whereby we had to let our best players go at almost any cost. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to say to other clubs, sorry, he isn't for sale; he is an integral part of our plans to develop a team worthy of promotion. At the moment most are coming round to seeing that we will become Crewe Alexander mark 2 under the current regime. It would be lovely if the board became almost faceless, allowing the manager and players to just get on with things without the worries that ours have now, unable to rely on whether they will be even here by January.

Value = quality + price. The more the quality and the lower the price, the greater the value. Unfortunately, the quality of the youngsters is seemingly apparent, but not yet proven conclusively, although the price has remained comparatively high. Some may argue that the current team is better value, which is undeniable from the point of view that their cost to us is minimal, but those paying for the entertainment provided for their money might feel that they are getting cheap product for the same cost. Perhaps some paid nothing to watch the same kids last season, which was outstanding value when it currently costs £25 to watch them now.

The attendance at the Sheffield Utd match highlighted the potential that is here. I'm not so pessimistic that many fans would not return with a total regime change, some investment cash spent on some good players and a decent run of results.

I think that you're right. There are many fans who think to themselves why should they put themselves out to bail out Lowe and Wilde? I'm certainly one who thinks along those lines and I'm pretty sure that I'm not unrepresentive. However, if somebody else took us over and made a plea to all the fans to come to matches and support the team, especially if they arranged some sort of price concession to encourage it, they would not have the baggage that Lowe and Wilde have and people would be more inclined to give them a chance.

If I were Lowe, I'd be so mad at all the fans for demonstrating against me after relegation that I'd plan a strategy where I'd cosy up to that swine Wilde under the pretence of helping save our investments. I'd pander to his ego by making him Chairman of the Football board, knowing full well that I'd take all the decisions and that he would only be the monkey to my organ grinder. Then I'd employ some complete unknowns from abroad to manage us and make out that it was some brilliant masterstroke strategy to help the club survive. Systematically, I'd sell all of the quality players and replace them with the youngsters. Mind you, I'd have to do this quickly, as there are rumblings that there are some idiots out there who are rumoured to want to buy my club. When they take over, they will realise that all that is left is the youth team and one or two journeymen, so their task will be all the more difficult to survive in this division. If they can't hack it, there might be another opportunity for me to come back again, this time as the club's saviour and my reputation will be fully restored. With luck, they'll take Sainst into administration and having bought my shares to gain control, I'll be able to buy a controlling interest at a pittance to replace my piffling little 6% that I hold now.

I haven't been over fulsome in my praise of the youngsters, but I'm prepared to give credit where it's due. Gillett has been one of the young players who have impressed me most. He is a real terrier in midfield. He reminds me a lot of Nicky Butt. I'm quite content with us playing him and I could see him as another youngster who would attract attention by the January window if he continues to play as he has so far. Naturally we wouldn't heistate to take an offer for him, as we will probably have Pulis Jnr. to step up to the plate.

Another broad sweeping generalisation similar to the one that you made on another thread stating that every game we played last season was crap. Of course, the truth was that although taken overall it was not a great season, in the same way there were signings by GB that were good ones. Presumably it's fine to forget the money raised by selling those players who were good buys, whilst concentrating only on those who were not. And concrete evidence of Burley's liking for a drop of the water of life, (although a penchant that most Scots have) being a hindrance to his management abilities would be appreciated. If you cannot furnish evidence of it being a problem, then I suggest that you do not peddle it as a fact.