Strange argument. We're talking about the reasons why we aren't winning. Sure, if this policy of underinvestment had led to great success people would back it and the board would have earned their bumper pay day. But that's not what has happened. Unsurprisingly the lack of investment has led to failure. I just want to know why a few have done so well from this failure while the majority suffer the consequences. I also don't think it is necessary to stop supporting the club before it's permissible to voice anger over how the club is being run.