um pahars

I like that analogy and it is exactly where I was coming from with my post on this thread, in that whilst we always ran the risk of being relegated, we certainly increased that risk through the mistakes, poor strategies and poor leadership in those final seasons in the top flight.

I have gotten behind Wotte since he has been here and I will support him and the team at every match I go to between now and the end of the season. I have also said that i think he has done a pretty good job since taking over the reins, and if he does keep us up then he has done a very good job. Maybe it's the way in which you read posts, because the intent was not to undermine or bash Wotte, instead I was merely pointing out that Wotte has found himself in very, very similar circumstances in recent times. What happened at Den Bosch has minimal (if any) influence on what will happen to us, just highlighting how he had already come in halfway through a disastrous season and managed to improve things. Whether ours has a happy or sad ending is an entirely seperate thing 9and personally I think we will stay up). (although I was happy to bash the OS and it's authors for their airbrusing of history).

And if it is, then they had better convert those gas holders in to cells as they will have to arrest 1000's each week at St Mary's. Sounds to me as though there was an over reaction by the Old Bill up at Blackpool and a similar one on this message board. Scratching my head that some people find it offensive to get frustrated, animated and passionate at a football ground, and that's before you get on to the perceived naughtiness of swearing!!!!!

Cribbing the title from another thread I have to say that there are also similarities between our potential relegation and the fate that Den Bosch suffered when Wotte took over halfway through a season!!! Den Bosch sacked their manager in March 2000 when they were struggling in the top flight. They brought in Wotte who had the task of turning their season around and keeping them up. "By the time Den Bosch discovered there is still a big difference between first and second division football, fired coach Martin Koopman and started to strengthen its squad, it was too late. Although their results and their football under new coach Mark Wotte improved strongly in the last two months, fellow strugglers SC Cambuur always stayed one step in front." Wotte ultimately failed and they finished bottom, were relegated and subsequently went into the equivalent of administration!!!!!!! But there is an upside, despite going down, Den Bosch won their last game 7-0!!!! Wotte resigned in the summer, to be replaced by someone called Jan Poortvliet. He steered them to promotion and this was the club the OS bigged up his success at (involving youngsters and being in financial difficulties with no money), it's just that they forgot to add the bit about Wotte's involvement in getting them to that position!!!!

Add up all the money wasted by a succession of managers all buying their own players to suit their own style of player (e.g. 4 in 2004 calendar year) and the fact that the strategy appeared to be similar to this pre season (i.e. a scattergun of quantity over quality) and you come to a nice tidy figure. We actually spent quite a bit around that time, the problem was that IMHO it was on mediocrity and too often it didn't enhance the existing team.

Spending money is no guarantee of success and similarly you can achieve success without spending loads. However, there is enough evidence to show that there is a direct correlation between money spent on wages and relative success (the Deloittes Annual Report regularly shows this to be the case). There will always be anomalies and exceptions, but overall the correlation is statistically strong enough to prove there is a direct link. Once you accept that, then you have to to everything possible to get as much bang for your buck, particularly if your funds are somewhat limited. I have never had a problem living within our means, but for me our problem has been how we went about spending the finite amount of money we had. When you're relatively financially challenged you have to make sure you get most of the big decisions right. Sadly, I believe we got too many of those wrong in recent years, with the most damaging being our failure in the recruitment and retention of managers. It's hard enough competing in such a competitive league without being hamstrung by poor leadership, poor decision making and an overall strategy that impedes your development as opposed to enhancing it. It's a tough business, but handicapping yourself with poor decisions e.g. three managers in a season (4 in a calendar year - 5 if you include Wigley's caretaker stint) is just asking for trouble.

Not sure what type of a statistic this is, but below is the average position of the relegation team's opponents: 19. BARNSLEY..........11.25 20. NORWICH...........12.17 21. PLYMOUTH.........13.17 ------------------------------------------------ 22. NOTT'M FOR.......14.7 23. SAINTS.............13.14 24. CHARLTON......... Dead and buried e.g. the avergae position of our 7 upcoming opponents is 13th, but obviously this doesn't take into account of home advantage and other factors (such as weighting). Sort of shows everyones run in is fairly even(ish).

A point is OKish, particularly when you consider two of our relgation rivals lost at home. Failing to close the gap on Norwich is a bit of a bummer, but fair play to them for earning a draw at St Andrew's. A break next weekend then it is crunch time with a raft of relegation 6 pointers: Saints v Charlton Barnsley v Forest Blackpool v Plymouth Norwich v Sheff Weds We could certainly do with beating Charlton as our rivals have a chance of getting points from those matches. And then of course the Monday after we have our game in hand at Watford!!!!!!!!! it will go to the wire!!!!!!!!!1:smt017:smt017

And conversely, I can remember big crowds where we have performed poorly in return for some good support e.g. Forest this year, QPR a while back etc etc etc.

I think we overplay the effect supporters can play in keeping us up. Whilst I accept a baying 60,000 crowd might get on the back of the referee or the opposition, I don't really think even a full house at SMS is that intimidating. The size of the crowd is very much driven by performances on the pitch, which is common throughout the divisions, and of course, I would have to argue that whilst there haven't been sell outs at SMS this season, there certainly hasn't been a booing, baying crowd either.

OK Frank, it might have been necessary because of the payout required for Sturrock, of course it might have, yep sure thing, OK, righty-O, roger, fair do's, etc etc etc, but it could also have been because aliens had landed and taken over Lowe's thought processes, or maybe the Queen Mother blackmailed Lowe into the appointment or maybe even that Wigley is really Lowe's love child. I'm sure we could come up with a million and one excuses for why Lowe appointed Wigley, before we get to, perhaps he thought Wigley would make the step up, but sadly he was misguided in his judgement. But you keep coming up with excuses for why it wasn't Lowe's mistake for appointing Wigley without full approval of his PLC Board.

Hear what you're saying, but I felt Wigley was just so much worse, not least because of how Gray panned out. Even though Lowe stumbled around all summer (but still signed Anders without a manager!!), I couls almost forgive him for going down the continuity route just this once. However, IMHO the appointment of Wigley was a total cck up from day one, with even the OS running round trying to find out exactly whether he was permanent or not, PLC Board Members not knowing about it, briefings about the management structure not being finalised etc etc etc. It just beggared belief that we would jeopardise our Premiership future with such an appointment (but of course it might have been done because we were skint after paying off Sturrock;)).

Lowe replies, "But....but....but.... I've got two really exciting letters that might change your mind. Firstly, I've got this letter from the highly respected and regarded Chris Iwelumo saying we're brilliant and secondly I've got this anonymous letter that I received on the morning of our last AGM saying everything was going great guns. Come on guys, you've got to respect those references!"

After 38 games last season we had 45 points. In the last 8 games we amassed a further 9 points (W2 D3 L3) to finish on 54 points. So we're about 6 points behind where we were at this point last season, but don't think survival will be 53 points this season (anyway I hope not as 14 points from 8 games is a big ask!!! It would be something like W4 D2 L2 or W3 D5 L0).

I didn't rule that out;)

Definitely the same person. Upon his return under his new guise, it didn't take him too long to slip back into the old ways and start rounding and abusing certain individuals. To ensure he didn't get the elbow again, he obviously tried to mix these tirades with more reasoned posts, but ultimately he couldn't keep up the facade for too long before it cracked again. The new improved version was too often interspersed with the old Flashman/Sundance etc. And I don't think he is anyone of importance and certainly not the names banded about on here (along with Marland as some believe). I may not agree with the strategy and execution of Lowe and co., but they are not that bad!!!

And why weren't you saying the same when you wanted rid of Poortvliet??? I don't remember there being a shortlist of managers in circulation during that period. You were more than happy to suggest Poortvliet should be sacked without being told who was going to replace him. What is the difference between suggesting a manager should be sacked without knowing who the replacement is and suggesting we should trade in one CEO for another????

Back to back wins against Donny and Norwich shot us up from 20th to the heady heights of 16th!!!!!!!!

But once again you fail to grasp the reality of the situation. To suggest the reason for their non attendance is irrelevant, spectacularly misses the point. Supporters have voted with their feet because what is being served up under the leadership of the current board is poor. It's as simple as that. Of course supporters can make a difference and of course they have a choice, but many will not make a choice that is favourable to the Club unless something changes (be it on or off the pitch). It's head in the sand thinking just to dismiss their reasons for not turning up. We have a hard core of loyal supporters who will turn out come what may, but we have lost many thousands from the middle ground due to the direct and iundirect actions of those in charge. The cause of the missing millions in revenue is not the middle ground supporters who no longer come, but those in charge of the Club who provide them with no reason to come.

You must have a poor memory nickh as this is our league positions throughout the first 25 games: 18 23 17 20 23 22 20 20 16 20 20 21 22 22 20 21 21 20 20 19 19 20 21 21 21 We had been in the relegation spots or thereabouts for almost all of the season. We didn't have a bad run from game 23 or 24 onwards, we had been poor from the off (apart from the odd game where we over achieved)

Surely a contradiction as what influence do supporters hold if when they flex their financial muscle, you then criticise them by suggesting they are putting the Club at risk. In addition, I find it difficult to understand the rationale of your constant blaming of the fans for the mire we find ourselves in (and now find it doubly difficult to understand how you accept they have financial muscle, yet they shouldn't use it). If a tranche of fans have walked away from the Club, then ultimatley that is their choice and considering what they have been offered as entertainment in return for their hard earned dosh, then I can understand why many have turned away. It's not something unique to us, as despite one or two isolated cases, attendances would have fallen at similar clubs in similar circumstances. Rather than moan or criticise supporters, we should be looking at the crass management that has allowed this Club to fall so far. A classic case of looking at, and blaming the sympton, as opposed to identifying and rectifying the underlying cause. The supporters of this Club (whether they still go or not) have not put this Club at risk, it is the failed policies of those entrusted to run it in recent years that have ensured that has happened. As for this particular initiative, then I have to say it falls down on almost every angle that I try to look at it from.

Many would of course argue that the first 23-24 games were also relevant!!!!! If sticking with Poortvliet for 4-5 games too long was foolish, then I have to say the initial appointment and the 24-28 games was an abject disaster.