As you may see, I have a perfectly reasonable poll closed and accused of being abusive towards all the supporters of the Club by Alex.

My poll, mischief making I admit, is quite legitimate in my view and if it constitutes abuse then almost every thread on this site should be closed. It may be however that Alex believes that my thread is particularly "abusive" and I am sure he will be able to elaborate why.

His reasoning apparently, is that the Trust, despite having a very small membership speaks on behalf of all the supporters of the club. This is factually incorrect, as it does not speak on my behalf or for any of my family. I also know a number of others who share the same view. The witch hunt that was carried out against the then manager alledgedlly in the name of the supporters, does not and will not ever sit well with me. I was never balloted and at the only meeting I recall on the subject that I was invited to attend there was a pretty even split.

I feel entitled to ask the question I did as I am of the firm opinion that this club is considerably worse off now than it was under the previous manager. Others may not share my view but I do not attempt to restrict there ability to speak.

It is sad that some moderators freely expect our club to be open and accountable to the highest standard, accept challenge and answer accordingly. Pity others aren't allowed to be scrutinised in a similar fashion.

Lastly in week that saw a huge gesture of compassion excercised by an individual in a position of huge responsibility, isn't it sad that an idividual with a wee bit of responsibility choses to excercise accordingly with little humility or compassion. Sadly dictatorship never dies it just changes it's format......

I take it then that you were happy with Mr Brewster and his management style and were content to watch the team get relegated without putting up a fight.

If your poll was anything to do with "we should have kept Brewster", which you seem to be saying then it is without a doubt abusive to the club and its supporters.

I take it then that you were happy with Mr Brewster and his management style and were content to watch the team get relegated without putting up a fight.

I wasn't happy but bit confused.

We had played well at Hamilton in my opinion and but for Granty's daft tackle would have taken a point which was the least we deserved. Can't remember how many times we hit the woodwork. Brew had also been allowed to make new signings, two of which proved very decent players in Filepe and Pavels. It seemed strange to sack him then. What would have happened, who knows but what I do know it couldn't have been any worse. That fact can't be argued. I also know that Brew can't be held responsible for our inpet failure over the last few games of the season.

Seriously though, I does not sit well with me that I am being censored in this manner particularly if, as Alex believes, the Trust speak on our behalf. What king of organisation that is supposed to representative cannot be questioned? Check my posting history, I am far from abusive!

I'm not rushing to praise/criticise TB until he gets at least half the time that Brewster got. Progress for me this season

would involve the club competing for the title. If we're in the bottom half then Terry and June can feck aff.

Of course the club is worse off now - we've been relegated FFS. We don't have any dosh. If we'd scored an extra goal when we beat St Midden, if we'd held the lead against Well for 10 mins longer, if Tokes hadn't made that tackle against Falkirk, the list could go on and on.

We were no worse over the season than St Midden or Falkirk, but somebody has to take the drop, and the club takes (probably) years to get over it.

It's been pointed out on here that as mods we agonise over decisions as a group. Sometimes on Saturday nights very few if any mods are online - we have nearly 1900 members yet people moan that the site is over-moderated. The site is run by Scotty and Don at their own expense, plus a handful of trusted volunteers. The answer as ever is- try running your own forum if you don't like how it's done on this one.

Edited August 30, 200915 yr by The Mantis

The fact that the decision to sack Brewster and Thompson is being questioned is quite incredible IMHO. I never expected us to get to such a low point where we would start to get nostalgic about the Brewster era . It reflects how dissapointing Butcher and Malpas have been IMHO.

mischief making I admit

Looks like Alex called it right in closing the poll based on those 4 words alone, so end of argument in that regard. If you want to make any further comment on the subject then I ask that you follow the correct procedures by raising the matter with one of the Senior Moderators (Gringo and The Mantis) via PM and they will take it forward for proper discussion.

With regards the Trust, nobodies been more critical of them since they formed than me and their was things (not) happening which I felt strongly about. I learnt that all the bitching and moaning in the world wasn't going to change anything so I put myself forward for the Trust Board and I can now have a proper say. Not saying that I've changed anything, but I'm now in a position to put my ideas and thoughts forward and to challenge anything I disagree with before it comes to an end product which is what most people see.

We can all mouth off (I've done/do more than most), but are you willing to step up to the plate and actually do your bit to perhaps bring about the things you want to see? I'll happily sign your (or anyone's) Trust Board nomination papers.

mischief making I admit

Looks like Alex called it right in closing the poll based on those 4 words alone, so end of argument in that regard. If you want to make any further comment on the subject then I ask that you follow the correct procedures by raising the matter with one of the Senior Moderators (Gringo and The Mantis) via PM and they will take it forward for proper discussion.

With regards the Trust, nobodies been more critical of them since they formed than me and their was things (not) happening which I felt strongly about. I learnt that all the bitching and moaning in the world wasn't going to change anything so I put myself forward for the Trust Board and I can now have a proper say. Not saying that I've changed anything, but I'm now in a position to put my ideas and thoughts forward and to challenge anything I disagree with before it comes to an end product which is what most people see.

We can all mouth off (I've done/do more than most), but are you willing to step up to the plate and actually do your bit to perhaps bring about the things you want to see? I'll happily sign your (or anyone's) Trust Board nomination papers.

I assume by your response that any post in which the originator can be deemed to "be fishing" will now be closed. Look forward to this approach being displayed fairly across the board and commend you for your supportive approach to Alex's well thought out considered response. No doubt there will be a number of well know anglers awaiting similar treatment.

Your point about people stepping up to accept positions of responsibility are fair but there is a subtle difference in that I do not claim to speak for anyone other than my myself. As for nomination, any desire I had to become involved in the organisation has long since gone. There are enough uncontrollable, unaccountable, untouchable quangos in today's society and I see no need to be part of this one. Speak for me, not a chance!!

I'm not rushing to praise/criticise TB until he gets at least half the time that Brewster got. Progress for me this season

would involve the club competing for the title. If we're in the bottom half then Terry and June can feck aff.

Of course the club is worse off now - we've been relegated FFS. We don't have any dosh. If we'd scored an extra goal when we beat St Midden, if we'd held the lead against Well for 10 mins longer, if Tokes hadn't made that tackle against Falkirk, the list could go on and on.

We were no worse over the season than St Midden or Falkirk, but somebody has to take the drop, and the club takes (probably) years to get over it.

It's been pointed out on here that as mods we agonise over decisions as a group. Sometimes on Saturday nights very few if any mods are online - we have nearly 1900 members yet people moan that the site is over-moderated. The site is run by Scotty and Don at their own expense, plus a handful of trusted volunteers. The answer as ever is- try running your own forum if you don't like how it's done on this one.

Totally understand and accept the difficult role of moderation. Also appreciate the enormous amount of work that must go in to delivering the site for all of us. If my questioning the role of the Trust is unacceptable then I am on the wrong site because, as I understood, we were free to debate issues related to our club. If people are big enough to right columns in daily newspapers publically questioning peoples decisions and/or their ability to do their job then they should be big enough to ecpect to be challenged. That is what public life is about and what the people they choose to criticise have to endure. The fact that some are paid and some are not is irrelevant, public life is public life.

I do not post abuse and take exception to being told I am. It shows a clear lack of understanding of the principles of debate and discussion, comparable only with the questioned "why", being answered with "because". Perhaps, Romanov is looking for a new member for his PR team and Alex could fill the void. As a moderator he is certainly demonstrating the skills required.

I assume by your response that any post in which the originator can be deemed to "be fishing" will now be closed. Look forward to this approach being displayed fairly across the board and commend you for your supportive approach to Alex's well thought out considered response. No doubt there will be a number of well know anglers awaiting similar treatment.

Your point about people stepping up to accept positions of responsibility are fair but there is a subtle difference in that I do not claim to speak for anyone other than my myself. As for nomination, any desire I had to become involved in the organisation has long since gone. There are enough uncontrollable, unaccountable, untouchable quangos in today's society and I see no need to be part of this one. Speak for me, not a chance!!

Get over it, you've had a thread on an Internet Forum deleted, big deal.

A comparison between the action of a moderator deleting a thread and a dictatorship is slightly unrealistic! What next, concerns of work camps for spelling mistakes, seriously..........

Understandably you want to air your views, but as you said, you posted it on the wind up, what do you expect?

Your comments about us being in a worse state under TB/MM flabberghast me. They are not the great white hope, they are not miracle workers, but they are IMHO a damn site better than the joke combination of CB/MT. That pair managed to do so much damage to the club that it may well take a couple of seasons to repair.

Do you seriously want CB/MT back?.......Seriously?................

I assume by your response that any post in which the originator can be deemed to "be fishing" will now be closed. Look forward to this approach being displayed fairly across the board and commend you for your supportive approach to Alex's well thought out considered response. No doubt there will be a number of well know anglers awaiting similar treatment.

Your point about people stepping up to accept positions of responsibility are fair but there is a subtle difference in that I do not claim to speak for anyone other than my myself. As for nomination, any desire I had to become involved in the organisation has long since gone. There are enough uncontrollable, unaccountable, untouchable quangos in today's society and I see no need to be part of this one. Speak for me, not a chance!!

Get over it, you've had a thread on an Internet Forum deleted, big deal.

A comparison between the action of a moderator deleting a thread and a dictatorship is slightly unrealistic! What next, concerns of work camps for spelling mistakes, seriously..........

Understandably you want to air your views, but as you said, you posted it on the wind up, what do you expect?

Your comments about us being in a worse state under TB/MM flabberghast me. They are not the great white hope, they are not miracle workers, but they are IMHO a damn site better than the joke combination of CB/MT. That pair managed to do so much damage to the club that it may well take a couple of seasons to repair.

Do you seriously want CB/MT back?.......Seriously?................

Don't want them back at all but I want people to be accountable for their actions. Anyone who thinks that we are not in a much worse state than we were is kidding themselves on. Posted on another thread about TB's and MM's managerial records at the clubs they have been at. For the umpteenth time, TB has been an abject failure at every club he has been at from Sunderland, Coventry, Brentford, Sydney apart from Motherwell where he inherited a fabulous group of kids at the same time. MM has been worse. Go and spend some time gathering any evidence to the contrary and I will listen. Will not accept they are better "because!"

They let Vigurs and Wood go FFS! They play LDZ ahead of Dick. Dumped Pavels to RB to play Tokes at CB!! I will dance down Academy St naked is any of the "Conference" players the have signed to date prove to be anything other than that. Also from my perspective, the playing fayre that has been served up to date under TB is shocking, drivel at worst.

All I want is people to wake up and smell the coffee. Some vocal punters got what they wanted but what now? Can anyone provide me with a single thread of evidence that I should have any confidence in the ability of our current managerial team? Perhaps I'm missing something and there is a whole chapter of success that will be dumped in front of me. Perhaps not.

We've got at least 3 or 4 other threads discussing Butchers virtues as a Coach/Manager, we really don't need another one, so I'll close this one off since you've had your answer on the censorship issue.