miserableoldgit

Perish the thought!

Didn`t take long did it?:confused:

Presumably then so does the blame?

His argument is that they all stayed away as part of a concerted "boycott" to shift Lowe. The vast majority stayed away because the "product" was crap. "Customer" not happy with the product. I have no problem with people staying away for whatever reason but to make it something it isn`t is ridiculous.

Ask Stanley.

I am going to take your advice:- 30-05-2009, 02:05 PM Stanley Full Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 4,353 30-05-2009, 02:08 PM

That is not an answer. Are you saying that those who went to games shouldn`t have? Were they misguided? What is your opinion? Sorry, you don`t have opinions - you spout facts. So were the people that went to games wrong to do so?

Well good for you. Obviously a man of principle. But I still maintain that you were in the minority as far as as the "stay-aways" are concerned. Most stayed away because the team were crap.

Does this mean that because I bought my ST and went to every game, I am some sort of traitor? Come on Stanley. How do you describe people who have done this?

ROFL

Not sure that increased ST sales will be that much evidence of an anti-Lowe stance. There is great high ATM due to the (prospective) take-over and the MLT involvement, after the "dark" years and that wave of optimism should translate into good ST sales.

I didn`t expect you to agree, but in this case YOU are wrong. A handful of load-mouths on here ranted and raved that they "wouldn`t set foot in SMS whilst Lowe is there". That is not a boycott. Yes, generally Lowe and Wilde were unpoplular (understatement I know) but to suggest that thousands stayed away purely because they were in charge is naive and simplistic. ROFL

Like Stanley, I am always right!

It was reduced revenues from lower crowds that led to the problems not some concerted "boycott" campaign from anti-Lowes. How many other "businesses" are going through the same thing at the moment?

THERE WAS NO "BOYCOTT!" People stayed away because "the product" was poor and they didn`t want to throw good money after bad. The amount that didn`t go purely because Lowe was there would fit in a phone box. Don`t make it sound like some great master plan.

Not sure that it`s spiritual.

Stanley doesn`t suggest anything. He states things as fact. He is ALWAYS right! The strange thing is that both Stanley and 19C are ALWAYS right and yet they disagree with each other.

To show how clever and how much more cultured he is than the rest of us on this forum.

I think that the catalyst was the dreadful performances (product). Would there have been such a drop in attendances had the "Dutch Revolution" proved successful and we had been challenging for promotion? No doubt there was wide spread dissatisfaction that Lowe and Wilde were back and a few people may have "boycotted" but to many Lowe was a convenient peg to hang the "non-attendance" hat on rather than say "I am not going becauase the team is crap". That would make you "not a proper fan!"

Exactly right.

This is total nonsense. The reason that crowds fell was due to the very poor standard of displays on the pitch. This coupled with the current financial meltdown made going to Saints matches a very good way of throwing your money down the drain. I have a ST and even I found it hard to go at times despite having paid my money up front. There was NO real anti-Lowe boycott that effected crowd sizes. There were a few "vocal" posters on here who made a big deal of their staying away because of Lowe, that is all. Mind you I suspect that you only posted this to get a reaction, so in that respect you should be happy.

Assuming that all goes well with the take-over and that MLT is Chairman (or similar) I shall be looking forward to the first home game, whoever it is against, because the atmosphere will be phenomenal!

For you????

Errr..... yes!