Again with the “one letter off nominative determinism” thing… you’ve a way with words.

Your question was answered. It was to do with comments made by Waggott in his club interview. Not recent actions. If you want engagement with the club, the only route that’s currently viable is by agitating. The Trust has been a “critical friend” and received nothing but occasional head pats and “jam tomorrow” excuses. Glen had a meeting and Waggott prioritised that meeting. It’s not incumbent upon someone to itemise their life to you because you want to know everything that’s going on, but can’t seem to decide whether the owners or are a good thing or not. Your right to attend Rovers games is being eroded by the very people you’re sitting on the fence about. It won’t feel like it right now, but in the current direction of travel under the owners and the people they appoint to run the club in their absence, the club’s likelihood of surviving diminishes. I’m of the view that match-going fans have a right to express their dismay. Consensus is building that this situation is untenable and the dismay is justified. You may disagree. See how far you get with that. If you’re honest with yourself, you’ll see that you want your cake and to eat it. You want the best for the club and to watch a game in peace (which every fan does) but don’t want to confront the reality that the best thing for the club and to watch a game in peace is to get rid of these owners. If the action required to initiate that upsets you, that’s unfortunate, but it doesn’t make it any less necessary.

three of your posts in 20 minutes undermining any point you’re trying to make and - along with your absence for a year - leading me to infer that you’re probably more pro-regime than your “what’s the alternative?” stance belies. It’s true, you didn’t know the ins and outs. You got the ins and outs, then dismissed them out of hand. You complain about a lack of transparency around a meeting that didn’t have anything to do with recent action, despite receiving information yourself from personal contacts at the club and not sharing that. Everyone has a right to agree or disagree with the current actions and question people involved with it, but being hypocritical, reactionary, argumentative and - frankly - ignorant, does make you look quite daft, in the end.

It’s been a form of protest in the past but fans should be mindful that entering the pitch without permission can result in a criminal record and a lifetime ban. I would encourage anyone considering it to remember who the hierarchy at the club are and whether they’d seize on the opportunity to permanently remove fans they deem to be “undesirables” or “troublemakers.”

They’ve only got 12 to choose from.

Extremely straightforward day at the office for Portsmouth. Not many of them broke a sweat. If 149 candidates were worse than this, I’ll be staggered.

There’s no belief

Warren Lucy discussing our record against newly-promoted sides, away from home: “the thing is it’s different players, different staff, different managers, different EVERYTHING” So close to working out the common denominator.

Whatever you were doing was a better use of your time.

On this showing, Woodrow’s reputation is well-earned.

Yeah, Billy Bremner gets a booking and a finger-wag for that, basically.

Looked “an old-fashioned yellow card” on first viewing, to me

This manager doesn’t yet know what to do with this group of players. Very clear.

Three points on Gestede: unconfirmed but he was having a pop at fans in the JW upper last home match, or so I read. He’s extremely under-qualified to be in the role, as the other two are, really. The reaction from other clubs’ fans speaks to why he’s a valid target. He pledged to be open, transparent and communicative with the fans when he was appointed and he’s done none of it. He’s not been here as long, but he’s fallen immediately into line with the other two, or so it seems.

You don’t get that rich without being a bit shady.