CB Fry

The original post was about look how many staff we've got through and some people genuinely believe that our situation vis-a-vis staff ins and outs is somehow unique. And the original poster is including the boardroom bods as well, so if you are going to let Sunderland off the hook as some model club because they had Peter Reid for so long, or whatever, then maybe you should look at two (three?) senior members of the SFC/SLH management team that were there from 1997 to 2006!!I'd like to see the boardroom movements in all those listed clubs in the comparable time. How's that for "stability"! Thought not.

Quite, but the point is we are not uniquely hard done by as some Saints fans genuinely believe. The fact that St Jason threw out the question about "name one other club that has got through staff like Saints have" like he thought it was a really hard question to answer says it all. Lowe has a lot to answer for, especially this season, and you know I want him gone. But plenty of other clubs are currently fu ck ed and have done it very well (badly) thank you without the help of Rupert Lowe in the last ten years. The arse end of last season's (and this season's) CCC table will show you that. We're never going to move on until people accept that, because whoever comes in next may not be a saviour purely because he isn't Lowe. Whoever it is could be a right plank.

Sheffield Wednesday, Derby County, Leicester City, Bradford City, Portsmouth, Nottingham Forest, Crystal Palace, Queens Park Rangers, Tottenham Hotspur, Newcastle United, AFC Sunderland, Manchester City, Wimbledon, Leeds United, Wolverhampton Wanderers, Coventry City.

Yes. There is no way the current regime are going to stop us going down. The only thing that will keep us in this division this season is Forest and Doncaster continuing to be worse than us, and another club going into administration and losing ten (or more) points. Frankly I am sick of "keep the faith" and sick of "we're playing brilliant stuff". I am not the most regular match goer, I make no claim to be (you'll notice, unlike Alpine, I keep my mouth shut about matches I haven't seen) but I have seen us live three times and on TV three times and all six times we flatter to decieve. Even when we're at our "best" we're ineffective - lots of pretty tappy triangles, but no finishing, and often not even a final ball. And I went to our best game at Derby, where, granted, we were really good for one half of football, but we were pretty bloody average in the first half, and being that we kepp getting told how we are going to "build on" things, that good half of football was in August and we have yet to better it from what I have seen, heard and read since. So I am sick of "we're going to build on" the occasional good results we've had. Because we've done nothing of the sort, and we're winning the number of games that a relegation team would win in this division by law of averages. I'm going to Reading, and I am expecting us to get tonked. So yes, sacking the manager is not an unreasonable thing to ask. There are actually some experienced managers around that might just turn our season around if they start now.

Er, and you said that before Lowe turned up no-one talked about the chairman, which is true. But it is also true that in the last ten years the awareness of "who your chairman is" has reverberated around the football world. ie everyone at clubs all over the country know about their chairman (and probably don't like them). ie Rupert Lowe did not single handedly invent the idea of the high profile chairman. Coventry fans all knew who their chairman was when they got relegated. But then, of course, people like you have absolutely no interest in concepts like "context" or heaven forbid, the "wider world".

Boo hoo Mr Scargill. Unless you're a member of the British Communist Party, I advise you to get over the fact that capitalism has been with us for some time now and isn't actually going anywhere soon. You can whine about those figures, but frankly they are piffling amounts - most of them would be about the same as the annual salary of one player in each year mentioned. Of course we could have remained a family club and resisted all attempts by anyone to modernise us in 1997, which would have left us where, exactly? My guess is playing Brentford on a regular basis from about 1999 onwards. Don't ever celebrate if we get taken over by a billionaire, will you, because that's not very family club, is it? But I bet my arse you would celebrate.

Yeah, because Southampton Football Club are the only football club on the planet that know who their chairman is and dislike him. I think you'll find almost all other league clubs who, in the last ten years have had their fans despise their chairman/figurehead/owner at some point. Plenty of other clubs have been fu cked over a hell of a lot more by owners/chairmen/false messiahs than we have. Lowe going will be brilliant for all of us, but some people are deluded to the point of lunacy that his very disappearance will turn us into world beaters living in fluffy duffy georgeous land forever more. There's plenty of footballl clubs bigger or as big as us that didn't need Rupert Lowe's help to flush themselves down the toilet.

This is far too sensible for this forum. 100% correct. And actually too sensible for Lowe who ignored this sensible advise and employed managers like Redknapp (who just doesn't buy into the concept of building a team from young players) and Gray/Wigley (who weren't strong enough, or experienced enough to fuse a team together within that remit). Jones, Hoddle and Strachan could and did do that. The perfect blend of getting the best out of what you have, and being able to stand up to the chairman - the three of them had the gravitas to face down Lowe, who respected them for it. And, lest we forget - it bloody worked. Forest, Sheff Weds, Derby, Leicester and the rest all went down and we got better and better. Burley should have been able to, but actually was given too much money and ended up being distracted by his new shiny thing at expense of his last shiny thing (Saga displacing Rasiak, John displacing Saga etc). Burley now in the current set up would probably have been okay, forcing him back to his early Ipswich ways. It's just a crying shame we didn't employ Gary Johnson or similar the day we went down. Or Dowie, or Boothroyd. In fact any of those three now would be handy. A real manager with experience of building teams, that will face down Lowe is what we need. But I don't think we're going to get him.

Of course he does. Having a team featuring homegrown young players is undeniably a good thing. In the period Arry and Arry were here, you couldn't move for people on this forum's predecessor demanding that so and so young player should play. Over and over again, people would leap on reports from Stapleford or the reserves and work up players into overlooked world beaters. And now you still get plaintive whining about oh why did we ever let Scott McDonald go, he's like the best player ever, oh why did we let Matthew Mills go he would have been brilliant just like he has been for, well, err... Okay, what about Brian Howard then. Now it seems that the very idea of playing young players is an absolute disgrace and why oh why should anyone ever suggest a thing. Lowe sticking his beak in is wrong, he shouldn't be interfering in the team, his Dutch project is wrong, playing all the kids is wrong, Lowe, JP both need to go and go now. 100% agree with all that. But for things to hang Lowe about, a belief in our young players and a belief that they could and should be our future show that his heart is in the right place. Wanting Saints to be a crucible of home grown young talent is not actually the most evil plan in the world, as some bitter people would have you believe. He's wrong, and he's an idiot, fine. Don't disagree. I want him out. But if AN Other figurehead came on and esposed the same beliefs in young players (say, a Nick Holmes, or a Gavyn Davies), I think he'd be called a breath of fresh air and a terrace hero.

Why is this even new news to anyone? The entire subtext of Lowe going on about the kids and Arry resisting it was blown apart when Arry played a team full of kids in the League Cup (against, remind me, Mansfield?) and they got gubbed. And Arry's post match was basically "I told you they weren't good enough" which sounded odd at the time, but of course revealed pretty clearly what was happening, and why Arry had only spent the £90k that summer. The good (ish) news is we are now reaching endgame on this stupid chairman and his arrogant ideas. In a couple of weeks time we will be stone, rock bottom, and he'll have nowhere left to go, because finally it'll be proved that his dopey notion is not going to work. Let's just hope someone, anyone saves the day before the Ajax of Hampshire find themselves in League One.

Hang on a minute - you're the one who got mortally offended and asked me to name 10 charities more important than the Legion. Glad to see you've come round to my way of thinking. The British Legion, although a fine organisation, is not the be all and end all of charities, which was my bloody point in the first place. But the legion does get pheonomenal annual exposure, more than any other charity I can think of, and more than pretty much any other charity of equal size and equal worth. I'm adult enough to appreciate that fact, whereas you seem to think its an offensive thing to say and come back with snippy remarks about cats (WTF?). Anyway, this is barely about football, let alone Saints, so lets draw a line.

I've never read this thread before. The death of this forum is not much to do with the performances on/off the pitch - in the old days defeats brought the forum into meltdown more than victories did. There is plenty to moan about, and the default position for football forums is moaning. It's the five pound charge, and the three post rule. My experience was I decided to hang back when it was brought in, see how it panned out. Then, I realised the three post rule was brilliant in controlling the amount of time I spent on here. So I stuck with it, with the three posts serving as daily addiction prevention. And now I spend less time arguing about the same old sh it. And so does the vast majority of other users, leaving a tiny hardcore of regular posters creating an incredibly dull forum of the same old, same old. Can't see too many £5s next year, because the current full members are fed up and the potential members really aren't missing anything. Oh well.

What a ridiculous response. Lets hope you or no-one in your family suffers the slow devastation of losing someone from cancer, or heart disease. Let's hope no-one you love dies of lung disease, or kidney failure. Let's hope that all your children and grandchildren are born 100% healthy and go on to live a life free from disability, leukaemia, blindness, deafness, celebral palsy. Lets hope no-one you know disappears from view through alzheimer's, or Parkinson's disease or any other dihabilitating disease. Let's hope no-one you know is killed in a road accident and you're left to pick up the pieces you were never expecting. Let's hope your house or workplace catches fire. But, hey, fu ck all the do-gooders wasting their time working with those organisations that might help people, and give every single spare penny to the British Legion. Silly boy. Well, as expected, more "I care more about the war than you do" **** measurement. Well done. I'll happily bet I know more about the first and second world wars, cause, effect and legacy than you ever will. Seriously, the Poppy Appeal is not marginalised, its bloody everywhere. And so it should be. Some of us are clever enough to be proud, wear our poppies, remember and be thankful. You should try it, because the tripe you're writing suggests all you want is another bloody war. And finally, it has been proved that SFC have, over recent years, done more for the Legion than any other club in the country. And still you moan. Seriously, get over yourself.

Sorry, what is this simple fact? We're in the financial poo, but so are huge numbers of other clubs, many of which are worse off than we are. Some Saints fans need to get over the "simple fact" that we are not unique. I'd like to see you telling, say, a Luton fan how our "truly catastrophic situation" (I mean pur-lease) is so much worse than theirs. I love this forum.

It's worth making the point Pearson didn't actually keep us up though. We stayed up because Leicester couldn't score against Stoke. Relegation was out of our hands on the last day of the season. I wanted Pearson to stay but fuc k me I can't believe the way people talk about him on here as some kind of mangerial messiah. He achieved bare, bare minumum in his time here. Nice bloke, probably be a decent enough Leicester boss, but enough bloody hero worship please.

So what was the minutes silence at every single sodding football ground in the country all about this weekend then? You've got a funny interpretation of being "overlooked" Poppy day and the legion get blanket coverage everywhere for a fortnight every year, year in, year out, in every newspaper, television station across the land. Rightly so, but no other charity on earth gets the same amount of exposure. And there are plenty of charities that have just as much worth as the Legion and get nothing like the exposure they get. And don't bother giving me a "they died for us..." lecture either, I know, and I don't need an overexcited dullard like you telling us like you're the only one who "cares". Get over yourself you wally.

I do hope you're not one of those fans who whined and grizzled like a ***** about how horrid Derby were under billy davies? I take it they never ever shook hands with anyone.

I always wear my poppy with pride etc, but I think we're getting a bit worked up here. Saints players wearing shirts with poppies embroidered into them doesn't in itself raise "lots of money" does it? And for those playing the "Southampton wouldn't be here but for the sacrifices etc etc" card is all a bit silly. Embroidered Poppy shirts didn't really exist until a few years ago. So do we say "shame on you" to the Lawrie Mac Saints team of, say, 1984? They didn't wear poppies embroidered into the shirts either.

I don't think Strachan signed a confidentiality clause. You're thinking of Sturrock. Strachan's book is pretty frank about Lowe. What people like you can't stand is that Strachan and Lowe worked well together for the entire time they were at the club together, and they still get on today. Anyway, who gives a fu ck about this drivel. It's over. We came back from the dead today and the march to a glorious sixteenth place finish is well and truly on.

Whatever. All I know is that day in Cardiff was a delicious day and easily the best day of my football supporting life. Laughed and sung in the pubs all day, cried for abide with me, and stayed in the Millenium until they virtually had to drag us out, drinking it all in. I don't need a no mark like you telling me it was some fluke or an abberration. I don't need you telling me it was all luck of the draw. So are you going to answer - if our current idiot chairman had "nothing to do" with a cup final and a season from a manager he employed then surely he had "nothing to do" with our subsequent relegation from the other managers he employed. Personally I think he takes nearly all the blame for relegation. You obviously think he doesn't. Right? Because sorry my homophobic little friend, the only stupid agenda on display is yours. I absolutely loved that cup run, only a fool with an agenda would disown our second greatest day for the sake of slagging off a posh chairman. That's an agenda. Seriously, grow up.

I know you are well known on this forum for posting infantile drivel, but this is one of the finest of the genre. You've surpassed yourself. What absolute tosh. Your disowning of the FA Cup run purely to make some pi ss weak point against the chairman at the time runs against why anyone supports a football team. FA Cup draw is random, and we had favourable draws to get to the final. No sh it, sherlock. And we did in 1976 too - we played a third tier team in the fuc king semi, and won with an offside goal. So do we disown that one too? You can say the chairman had "nothing to do" with it, but only if you say he had "nothing to do" with relegation either. And, as anyone with half a tiny brain knows he had his hand to play in relegation (in a huge, huge way) then just the same his appointment of Strachan and the great couple of seasons following that are something Lowe had a hand in too. If Gordon Strachan thinks so, who the fu ck are you to say different? I'd like to see you tell Strachan to his face his cup run was one big fuc king fluke. Make my day. I pity this country's education system for turning out dross like you. Get yourself an eduction - read a bit of Kipling If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster And treat those two impostors just the same; Geddit? Unless, of course you are absolving Lowe of all blame of relegation too.....which would be equally thick being that our chairman was clearly to blame for it. Well? Oh, why bother with reasoning of an infant.

What a surprise to see the following line from the big man, for possibly the millionth time: "I was one of three managers, including Bobby Robson and Brian Clough, who had success in the game at clubs where we remained for 12 to 18 years". Yes Lawrie was our most successful manager, and probably always will, but he never was, and never, ever will be in the same class as those two. McMenemy was reasonably successful at one club, once. Robson and Clough were world class managers who repeated their success at more than one club and reached the very pinnacle of their professions. And both of them extended their careers a hell of a lot longer than Lawrie did. But it never stops the big man dropping their names alongside his every single time he gets a chance. Just a small thing, but it really annoys me. Other than that, an interesting article - Him and Bally really did work brilliantly, such a shame it didn't go on longer than it did.

Errr - surely the £2.2m per year is the debt repayments, ie the mortgage. So its not more. It is what it is. A mortgage. And £2.2m, even in our current plight is not gigantic money. You can't say our demise started with building SMS because noone knows what would have happened had we not built it. I doubt, for example, Mr Hoddle would have come here in the first place if we had no stadium on the horizon. No-one can say, but I doubt it. What you can say is if we hadn't have built it and gone down anyway - lets look at all relegations from 1997 and call it 100% likely - everyone would hate Lowe for not building a new stadium and people would still be *****ing about it now. Remember, everyone was building stadiums at the turn of the century. Not joining in was not an option.

I think you need to get your head round who you are actually aiming your rants at, mush. While Pearson was here, his record, at absolute, absolute best was patchy and included some right tonkings. It was under Pearson we slipped from not being in the relegation zone to having relegation out of our hands on the final day. To have a go at fans for not being universally delighted at that at that point is just stupid on your part. And, close season, It didn't stop the fanbase, pretty much as a whole, saying NP deserved his chance this season. And as others have said (I doubt it will ever sink in, though) it doesn't make a blind bit of difference what JP's record is now. Even if JP loses the next twenty games it doesn't make Pearson's record at Saints any better than patchy. Pearson never was some football messiah that saved us from relegation. He delivered on the bare minimum requirement of the job, winning just the minimum number of games required to keep us up. He seemed like a decent bet to stick with for this season and I wish he was still here. But noone here is a hypocrite, and I don't really think you have a clue what you're actually moaning about here.

St Marco, what seems to have "gone over your head" is the "vocal group" you seem to be railing against is about three people winding people up on a message board. This group you are battling against are a fictional as the lizard rulers of the earth that David Icke goes on about. Errr, SOG, why is the entire burden of proof on the people that contest the fairly obvious fact that Pearson wanted to stay? Why don't you have to prove anything to prove your argument that he didn't? You seem quite happy to take the moral high ground about how we should jolly well disregard conjecture, but all you've done is spout lie after lie claiming Pearson didn't want to be here. Pearson wanted to stay - he said it before, during and after. Of course he wanted to stay - this was the best job he ever had, and when he left he had to drop down a division for gawd's sake. Pearson wanted to say, and you're a liar for saying he didn't. Now why not try proving us wrong?