Make sure when Santa asks you what you want you can answer his question cause you certainly are not able to answer mine.

Yes, you would review a manager’s contract two years after appointing him – although I do not see how that is different to what currently happens – but that is not an answer to my question. My question is how to you make sure that replacing this manager be a more successful endeavour than replacing the previous six managers?

Interesting points about Gary McAllister who Leeds sacked after the game at Histon despite his having won 50% of his games and reaching the play-offs. Grayson took over the team and – what do you know – reached the play-offs. Hardly the proof that changing the manager is a successful process. Likewise Huddersfield’s change of manager came alongside a massive investment in players which – and I’ll help you out here – could be an answer to your question. The Huddersfield chairman made sure his next appointment was more successful than the last by giving him a huge increase in resources. To suggest that the difference between Town this season and last is Lee Clark and not Stan Ternant is disingenuous.

I’d also like to point out that I’ve never used the word “indefinitely” in this context and tell you not to attribute it to me. I would not get rid of a manager on the basis of a 3-0 defeat against a team at the top of the division.

You obviously know David White better than I do if you know his mindset. Tell him I say Hi next time you are hob-nobbing with him and that the door is always open for him if he wants to write something new. Comments are at times turned on and off on various articles including my own regardless of who the author or the subject matter is (although they now have a different format which was designed since David and my articles) but – as you say – you will not know that not being a regular reader I assume having stated that the site is not a “must read” although – and I would hate for you to take this as a rant – but far more people read the articles on website now than they did in the period up to 2005 and more people return to the website on a daily basis than they did in those years so while the site has changed it certainly is no less of a “must read” for an increased number of people. Perhaps that answers to the credibility of the website although it would be arrogant of me to say that the site does, or does not have it. I create it, all readers form the opinions and either come to the site or do not on the basis of that.

Addressing a wider audience – and for those who are interested – there was a change in the site away from news and rumours and towards opinion and articles. In the early part of the decade City news online was thin on the ground but as the years progressed the likes of BBC, The T&A, The club site and many other news portals ramped up the coverage they provided to a level where much of the time spent on BfB was repeating news that the readers have found elsewhere perhaps with a comment or two. This simply was not worth my time and so the site was wound up for a bit and returned on the basis that it would focus on opinion articles for those who wrote articles.

Doing that provides a breadth to the coverage of our club online but the site is not for everyone and obviously not taking a neutral stance is always going to upset some people who disagree but there is an open door policy to articles and a tiny percentage have been spiked over the last ten years. Some of those articles have criticised supporters – although some would suggest that if you are the sort of person who boos young players you are not a supporter or the club by any definition – but saying BfB is a “bash the fans” site is as contradictory as it is inane. Everyone who writes for the site is a Bradford City fan and no one is tied to an editorial policy. If one fan has an opinion that the others need to be taken to task over – for example – booing Joe Colbeck then they have the platform to say so.

At least that is what BfB provides – and it provides it for you to make your point – so I wait with baited breath for an answer to the question.

To answer the last point David White is – as with all the other contributors – allowed to write for the site as and when he pleases. David was – he told me – pleased to have that article on BfB (It followed the Notts County 5-0 defeat and suggested that while keeping a manager was the correct thing to do, McCall was not the correct manager to keep) and I’m very keen to hear more of David’s thoughts. His three articles in the last four years suggest that he is not a regular contributor but David – if you are ready – get in touch and write something new.

The article of David’s formed a part of a pair of articles one for, one against presented without comments on this website switched on. BfB has been creating this sort of paired article for the best part of the last decade with it being a staple of the site in the mid-part of the decade. It was adopted at that point for practicalities – neither Jason or I was available to approve what one would have anticipated would be a multitude of comments – but an even hand was given to both sides of that debate.

To suggest that I “refused to allow anyone to comment on it” is tediously untrue. It was not available for comments on this website (and would not have been even if the comments switch had been turned to on, not all comments are published, there is an editing process detailed in the guidelines on every comment page and as our friends at Rochdale illuminated I am legally liable for the comments published on this site) but I am told that it was debated on the OMB and the issues discussed are debated at length on other parts of this website frequently – indeed this article does it. Before I added comments to BfB – a good 85% of the lifetime of the site – debate was continued about the articles on other sites and that pair of articles were no different.

You want to portray me and this site as trying to silence criticism of Stuart McCall but publishing an article criticising him and even the twisted view you are harbouring must be able to notice the ridiculous contradiction in that. Not only that but today you have been allowed the same platform to make similar comments in a debate. Only a blithering idiot would characterise that as some attempt to silence comment.

Onto the other points I did ask you to answer a question and you have not been able to do that nor indeed have you read the comments I made – or perhaps you read them and did not understand them which seems to be the case – but all you present is the idea of removing something from the club and nothing about improving the club. I find it remarkable that anyone can unquestioningly follow the (indefinite?) policy of replacing managers on a near 18 month cycle despite the frequency which it fails although I note that if Chairman Bruce has given Paul Jewell until the end of his first half season contract he would have seen the mid-table finish and sent him packing.

Very simply, and without daft comments about upsetting people or Mystic Meg predictions: What assurance is there that replacing this manager be a more successful endeavour than replacing the previous six managers?

Seriously though thanks for calling in Paul – good to have you here – and well done to all City fans who represented the club well.