Silk- I agree with your point that the DTB should have done a study to see at what level (if any) we could be solvent while fan-owned- that is the biggest failure over the last few years. If we could be solvent at L2 or even NL level I personally would be fine with staying fan-owned at that level. If (as I suspect) we would need to sell the ground and drop back to Ryman level (which is the level where FCUM, for example,have stuck) I am not interested in that at all and I doubt that many supporters would prefer that vs selling to an “owner” who would fund enough losses to keep us in the league (I suspect that such a person exists, but again this is something that the DT should be pursuing, rather than wasting time on “50%+1”)

Not in the last PL season we didn’t.

Hackford is at his most effective when we play balls behind the back four for him to run on to. Did we do that yesterday? He is this season's version of Andy Clarke.

Thanks Silk 👍

Not sure what formation we played yesterday but it was not 5 at the back. Oggs played as a CB next to Johnson. Tilley was a RB. We looked more like 4-4-1-1. Browne did track back and put a shift in. We've got the Stevens back from the 2nd half of last season where games passed him by because he needs service and is getting none. Nkeng wasn't effective. Hackford barely touched the ball when he came on. We definitely looked better after the quadruple substitutions, but it took ages for Jackson to react when up until that point in the 2nd half we were lucky only to be a goal down against a garbage team who missed a sitter at the end with a free header in our 6 yard box near the end.

Nick W and Nick D - I am not debating about the survival option. I accept we have to sell for that unless someone can do the sums and show we can survive at a level like the NL and still compete. Isn't that what the DTB should be doing - showing us what level we can survive at so we can make an informed choice.

Nick D - successful on the pitch has many definitions. In the D1/Prem days we knew we were never going to challenge for the title but it was challenging in every game. It was about having a system that allowed us to attack. Sometimes we win, sometimes we would lose but we always went to games thinking we could win anywhere.

Silk - this is human nature. Always wanting more. Original sin. Reject that and football, and the whole world, would be a much better place. But I don't ever see that happening, so we are left in the impossible position we have found ourselves in trying to please everyone. And people say, "we can be fan-owned, sustainable, the best communuity club, and successful on the pitch", but we can't and at the end of the day, we have to work out which of those we want above all else. And I think the majority of memebrs would go for the last of those options. I wouldn't, but we live in a democracy.

Silk - Getting an owner is about survival not progression.

A4E - from what I heard from the Rotherham fans on twitter/bbc etc the first half was a non-event and it was their substitutions and changing from a 4-4-2 to a 5-3-2 that let us back in. Of course that includes their own bias after losing the lead.

$6M man - you make a fair point about us being run badly at a strategic level (to my mind this is just a matter of the DTB being blinded by fan-ownership ideology and not open to new ideas on this). It's a classic case of a problem being so big that the only solution is to ignore it. My point below was that we are not run that badly on a day-to-day operational level, but I agree that on a strategic level we have ignored a looming problem for years.

Does anyone who was at the game yesterday feel that the subs came on at about the right time (72-ish minutes), given that the equaliser was 10 minutes later, or might we have won it if the subs were made around the 60 minutes mark…?

Our ambitions, including us fans, does not match our pay check. We are desiring expensive cars on budget cars wages. And even if we get a decent owner some fans will still be disgruntled we are not higher which is why fun is more important than progression for me as if you base it on progression you will always be disappointed

RK - that is the frustrating thing about Browne he will disappear for large parts of the game but is currently our top scorer which says a lot about us. I feel we can only play one of Stevens and Browne and at the moment maybe it is Stevens who needs to be dropped. Which was blasphemy before he came back from injury. Maybe the new midfielders will create more. Browne for me is someone who moves the ball along and gets on the end of chances. Somewhere between an Earle and a Holdsworth but he will not create much. Which is why him and Stevens as a front two is not a good idea.

Is it possible to be a good club in a bad world?

Wouldn't be surprised if ST for next season are for sell early, get some money in immediately

I don't know how anybody thinks we are not badly run. The powers that be have known for years what our financial situation is and yet they continued to bury their heads in the sand and allow us to keep making losses, take hand outs for January transfers and have put the club on the brink. They've had years to sort this out and chose not to. Even now nothing tangible is being done. We might not make as big a loss as other clubs but their losses get covered so they live within their means. We don't.

Trigg - that’s hilarious… 😂 Do you reckon “CockCam” was a fake one just for giggles or a genuine attempt to stop people from stealing those little freshener blocks they put in the urinals…? 🤔🤪

Reading back, sounds like we owe yesterday's point to Silk, who as Wup master tactician, was urging Jackson to take Marcus Browne off!

The update I would like, is not the £1m board member funding, but how we are progressing the preferred DTB strategy around partnerships (no sniggering at the back). That would be more telling

*yesterday not tester

One of the pubs I went in before the game tester had a CCTV camera directly above the urinals. Wasn’t hidden or anything it was quite obvious.

LD - I think that what you say is entirely correct - in my view we are not particularly badly run as a business (not good but no worse than other clubs). As you say, though, for us and other clubs, player wages are unsustainable without an owner to fund the ongoing losses. The problem is that, with our ownership model, we don't have that owner, so we cannot survive in the longer term. Given that the overall way that the industry works won't change, it's a fundamental flaw with our structure and why we have to either find an owner or go out of business. As Spit says, I doubt that the option of "finding our level" at which we would be sustainable (likely National League South or lower) even exists, due to the cost base that we have with the ground).

For me the division we play in is largely immaterial as long as (a) we can survive and (b) it is fun. I have seen some of the Championship matches on Now and they are mostly boring and soulless where any fun has been tacticed away by robot managers. Give me someone like Mkeng who will blow hot and cold and will not always be properly defensively positioned over someone who just fills a hole in a tactic and creates nothing all season. I am an old git now who remembers wingers were for attacking not defending. And the game was football not chess and won by players not systems.

Sadly that's professional football nowdays! We can try living in our means,but that would probably take us back to below national league and with the costs of plough lane we will be in administration before then.