I think there is a third type of poster who hasa been largely forgotten in this debate

There are those who have in previous years been unequivocally positive about the club, board, project, manager or whatever but who have altered their viewpoint on any given subject. Likewise, those who used to be balanced but really have difficulty doing so anymore.

There's no right or wrong answer though, no good or bad posters.

I used to have all the time in the world for the current owners, largely up to the point where the board begun being populated by celebrities instead of people who'd bring some much needed acumen or even investment. I used to advocate being careful what we all wished for though when dreaming about that financial shot in the arm.

Now however I'm afraid my opinions have totally changed, probably for good since the Times interview. Just because that puts me in whatever camp that puts me in I don't think that makes me a bad supporter or even necessarily a good one.

I still try and be positive about things but it is getting ever more difficult. The bond issue looks like a good deal, fair play to them for trying something, though I'd rather see the admission of mistakes meaning it wasn't down to the fans yet again. Perhaps if it hadn't been celebrities and family members being brought onto the board in recent years, perhaps this might not have been needed.

Being balanced, or trying to be, I'm prepared to cut Webber and Farke the slack they deserve as they are really up against it but again, how long for? Webber came with a swagger but is the almost one dimensional recruitment achieving much? Sure, we are in transition, but they've bought sixteen players in this season, 12 of them on permanent contracts and only 3 of those 12 were in the team yesterday. While I hope the sporadic signs of progress suddenly translate into a promotion challenge next season, I doubt it.

Posted By: Chalk Hill Bitter, Mar 11, 11:07:24