Our subservient chairman yielded to the almighty lifeblood of Newcastle United, and respectfully installed Glenn Roeder as manager in accordance with the wishes, and indeed demands of the fans.

That’s the fallacious assertion insinuated into over-qualified statements, by sections of the media, that ultimately blame the fans for being disgruntled at a mess that we supported wholeheartedly.

Supporters of all clubs up and down the country all remonstrate against the misrepresentation and misinterpretation of what they deem to be the ‘true supporter’s opinion’. Naturally, this is an absurd statement in a game that was christened ‘a game of opinions’ - no such thing exists. That being said, there can, and does exist a consensus. This can be defined as the crucial perspective of the majority of fans. Minorities congregate too though, and are by no means exiguous or negligible, by definition. Furthermore, iin such a popular sport, the antithesis of the majority often has substantial numbers. The media tend to procure their information from within this minority.

You are just one person. You could not possibly hope to know the views of every supporter. No one could. How is it that the media or I could make such a choice? Utilizing polls to achieve the most accurate consensus given modest resources, perhaps? Of course, were this the case, the Mark Lawrensons of the world wouldn’t interject footage of supporter discontent with snide and typically cowardly sideswipes voicing how the fans are culpable, with total conviction. No tentative suggestion that some fans were in acquiescence with the chairman’s choice, just the propagation of a noxious generalization. Similarly, one might ask how I am sure about my theory of ‘minority-selection’. To be candid, I am not. It is an opinion that is representative of the fans that I have spoken to on my travels. The difference is, I would never dream of dressing it up as anything but that.

As a keen member of the forum of this site for many years, it occurred to me that generally speaking, the consensus regarding club matters, divided as it may be, tends to differ from those outside the forum. An example of this is the vociferous support Roeder has received from non-forumites in the face of forumite articles by those who would suggest Roeder’s tenure is at an end. [Incidentally, I do not know of any forumite that is pro-Roeder at this point. That is not to say that he is disliked, but no one seems him as our manager in the long-term as far as I am aware.] Is it not possible that our over-analysis is so concerted and intense within our little microcosm that conclusions are reached more swiftly and ahead of those, where football is not a 24-7 subject? Not to be dismissive of those outside the forum by any means, but chinks in the armour of arguments are exposed brutally at times, whilst in other mediums, constraints [usually pertaining to time] inhibit thorough analysis. Given that this is the only real 24-7 platform exclusively for Newcastle United matters, I would imagine it means that views are almost fast-tracked, if not somewhat reactionary at times, by virtue of the same intense characteristic.

The game is still one of many opinions, opinions that only time can validate or ridicule, but of late, a stance taken by increasing numbers, is that Glenn Roeder is not the biggest problem that Newcastle face, Freddy Shepherd is.