So hear me out... Moving to Sixfields was, and still is, a good business decision from SISU. They got out of a restrictive lease, and cut costs. Without that move, the club might have been dead by now. And this is my problem with engaging with SISU on business terms. All the discussions are about finance, economics. The problem is, it's setting the game of football on business terms that legitimates the likes of SISU existing in the game, in the first place. It may be a romantic notion, and it by no means avoided the shysters, but the old model of local man made good ploughing some of his money back into the community by owning a football club kept the clubs as a community asset, kept them in the social, rather than the financial sphere. And surely, by discussing the finance above all else, we end up having to acknowledge something like the opening paragraph. The reason it *wasn't* a good move, is because football is about emotion, people... the social. Engaging with the financial stops certain elements from being accepted... because they're associated with SISU. Chief among them is the need for a home of our own. This, absolutely, is needed, but not for financial reasons. It's needed because it offers a physical space for the club to call its own, for it to be associated with, for an identity to focus around. And that identity can be stronger than anything else. Indeed, long term, it'd end up better financially too. But clubs don't look long-term nowadays, they don't build for years to come, for the people that follow them. The main problem is, neither do we. As a social asset, the club absolutely is important to its local council, but the local is straightjacketed by the national, that stops them making cultural, long-term decisions. So, while we're ignoring the owners, we may as well ignore the local authority while they engage on the financial level. They're only worth it once they revert to the social and the cultural. But we encourage the financial, too. The problem is, we let SISU dictate the rules on things like home. We always have, since they came here - right from the beginning it was all about how they had good business sense. Be careful what you wish for, because the aims of business don't agree with the aims of a club. On a wider level, it's similar to how we let Sky dictate the rules on tradition, too, and how it gets lost... missing the fact that the product is only popular *because* of that tradition, that background, that cultural depth. Wouldn't the strongest thing to do, would be to dismiss SISU as the wastes of space they are, and look at what a *club* needs? Those standards would be there, whoever were the owners. And it's not just items in themselves, we need a unique style that people from outside recognise as ours. Jimmy Hill had us as pioneers, that's what we should be doing. Rather than following a failed investment fund by arguing with them, we need to ignore them and state what *we* need. And while looking to the future, we need depth, too. And to get that depth we need to remember the heroes of the past, and allow them the pride of place. We need to remember not just the cup winners, the Wolves 67 team, but the Clarrie Bourtons, too. That's what makes us distinct. But we're at a stage now where we know the finance is knackered, what's the point of showing that up and wasting time on that? Better to ignore the money statements from failed financiers, and strike out as pioneers. And to recognise we don't want people to survey each other across polished boardroom tables and discuss spreadsheets, we want people to build a club.