thewookieisdown

I see some of our fans went to the game yesterday. Presumably all of them season ticket holders. Slightly odd, but fair enough. They bought season tickets before we went into this phase of collapse. But they must have gone with the purpose of protesting against the owner. No one has any other reason to be there. As I understand it, Coventry fans and indeed staff showed some support for us. So playing their song, whatever it is, seems a reasonable thank you. If word gets to him, our owner will not be happy. A signal of thanks to the away side for their stance on the protests.

Well done, and thank you

What an odd thing to say

Can you have a go at explaining why you - and people like you - make this sort of comment? No one argues that you do not have a right to go to the games, or to make your own mind up. Literally, no one is arguing that at all. So when you say "I have a right to decide", you are howling at the moon. Of course, you have a right to decide. The argument of the majority of fans is that revenue streams should be shut down as far as can be done, and we would call on all fans to boycott. Your case needs an argument, not that it is lawful to supply revenue, but that it is the right thing to do. Just as the argument for boycotting is not that "we have a right to boycott" - true, but irrelevant. It's that while it may well not be decisive, it's action towards the only thing that the club currently needs, which is the disappearance of Chansiri.

I sometimes think the supervolcano can't erupt soon enough.

No. I want my club back. I

The fans who went tonight are despicable. "It's a chance for us to go because it's cheap". "Support the team, not the owner" And most stupidly of all - "It's a free country and I am entitled to go". Morons, all. The fan base is, in fact, reasonably united. Good boycotts for both the cup games. We'll not get to 100pc. Doesn't alter the fact that the people who went tonight are despicable.

It is in the great scheme of things a small number. As it was for Leeds. The Leeds story was of a boycott, rather than of a few thousand halfwits who we could well do without. All the same. Halfwits they all are, and irritating ones too.

Good stuff. Let's not be dismayed by the inevitable fact that some of our fans our wibbling cretins who deserve to see their club disappear. The Leeds boycott was well observed. In normal circumstances we'd have had four times as many there. We'll not get 100% for Grimsby. But we can hope for a decent haul. I imagine him as Smeagol. Clinging on desperately above the fiery lake of Mount Doom. Time to stamp hard on his fat fingers.

Good piece. In the end, it probably comes down to the fact that he's a pathetically stupid human being. He's got the £100m in his mind, from some vague thought process of how values have inflated and likely will continue to inflate; and a sense that he should be recouping money put in. All thorough nonsense, of course, but he is borderline messed up, and can't be reasoned with.

Great journalism. Mark Twain said that he had never actively wished for a man to die, but there were people whose names he had been glad to see in the obituaries. As to the morons buying tickets and products, I wish them all stubbed toes, cancelled trains, and bad weather holidays.

The early 90s team was very good, but not great; it's a sad state of affairs that for me age 59 it's the best of my lifetime (and I don't expect to see a better one). On its day it truly was great, and during that purple patch from January 1993 through to kick off time in the League Cup Final it may well have been the best team in England. But that didn't last, and wasn't built on.

I'm surprised if that's controversial

That is true, and "for years" takes us back a long way. It could be very flat in the early 90s when we were going well. When Hillsborough is at its best, it's great, but much of the time it is mediocre

A subtle and fascinating analysis.

Oh, I completely agree with that. The man's a cretin. Other things too, but very much a cretin

Quite so, and from an EFL point of view it's - rightly - fine if we disappear. There are plenty of other clubs on the up who can fill our place.

The EFL have arguably been over-indulgent to us in recent months. Whether a tougher and some would say more rules-based approach would have speeded Chansiri's exit, or just left us already playing at a lower level, I can't say. But I don't think we could have had much complaint if we had been deal with more harshly.

Presumably, if - this is a big if, but just as a thought experiment - Chansiri could find a way to run the club sustainably on a tier three or four budget, the Regulator couldn't intervene. And certainly shouldn't. There's no public interest reason at all why we shouldn't operate at the level, say, of York City. Which is why withholding revenue does become important.

If you are unwise enough ever to read the comments on a local newspaper feed, you will see two things. One is halfwit pensioners moaning that the town has changed for the worse and blaming the council. (Any council. Anywhere). The second is halfwit pensioners (and others) moaning that they can't read an article because it is behind a pay wall. This last bizarre supposition that newspapers should be free at point of use explains the horrors of local newspaper websites: ads, insane non-localised clickbait.

Well, quite. So tiresome.

So a property of being adult is that you never get angry? An odd view of the world. I am incandescent with Chansiri. He has wrecked one of the pleasures of my life. It's quite possible he will end up damaging it beyond repair. I am also angry with people who claim to be fans, but are enabling this wretched man. No apologies at all for that.

Hmmmm. I'm prepared to respect someone who goes who can give a good reason. "A family member is in the first team squad" is a very good reason. "It's a free country and no one can tell me not to do" is dribbling halfwittery. I have no respect at all for anyone saying this sort of thing.

I stay away: means that I am depriving the Chansiri regime of income. I "celebrate" (by the way, what an odd word. What do we have in mind? Dancing a little jig? Reaching for a late night Armagnac? FWIW my "celebration" consisted of a wan little smile as I what had happened on my phone leaving the cinema, and a WhatsApp to my son): Chansiri accrues no additional income. There isn't some cosmic meter which harnesses the good mood of fans, and monetises it to the owner's benefit.

I was a civil servant between 1994 and 2008, and worked for a regulator for a while. Regulators can deliver results, but they do work slowly. Yes, they have powers, but they have to use them reasonably and proportionately. Above all, that means consulting. It looks like in this case - as is generally true for regulators - the basic regulatory tool is the licence. The regulator will need both to set out the specific conditions a licence holder needs to meet. Having done that, it will be able to assess whether those conditions are met or not in any case. For both the general case and the specific assessment of any club, it will take time. Everything is very much open to challenge in a court. Having said that, while regulators are independent of Government, they are only human, and will want to make their mark. We are the obvious club to have a decent go at. Also, in sane parts of the galaxy, companies can see which way things are likely to go when the regulator in involved, and will tend to adjust their behaviour accordingly before a full process plays out. Chansiri is messed up and wouldn't be able to do this, but perhaps family advisors will find it useful. (of course, some regulators have failed: partly the result of capture, partly because their staff aren't all that brilliant, but chiefly because the model is basically silly. Of course assets such as water infrastructure should be in the public sector. Equally obviously, of course nationalising these industries isn't "unaffordable". But these are other points)