um pahars

Given his recent dabble with the continent, it would of course have to be the Jeux Sans Frontieres version;) And don't forget he would need to catch two beachballs, just in case the the manager on the first one goes tts up a few months down the line. Trois, deux, un!!!!!!!!! Then again not sure Eurosceptic Lowe would partake in such a federal game invented by Charles De Gaulle!!!!!

You're right with regards the last relegation & season tickets, but even though I didn't agree with the reasoning, you could at least see they thought they had a justification, in that even if we went down the effective price per match reduced because we had 4 extra games each season. Perhaps it is solely because they realise that people won't renew until our fate is sealed and supporters will be looking for a price reduction if we drop down a division. On another point, our payment on the "mortgage" is made every August, so that's not a pressing commitment, and I'm sure I also got a snippet from somewhere that we had renegotiated the payments on the loan anyway (never had that confirmed, but the half year accounts may show this).

In the current climate, I reckon every business, every institution and almost every entity wouldn't say no to some form of investment, so like you I'm not overly worried that we haven't got the For Sale signs up or taken out a listing on E-Bay!!!!!

What would be the fcking point???

I think you've saved me some time replying there. I just got to the bit about Pearson and thought "Fck me, he hasn't got a clue". I don't mind people having different opinions, but he has just been making stuff up on a number of threads recently.:smt048:rolleyes::smt048

You are rather prone to over sensationalising things aren't you? No one has been suggesting they are so great, more that in having them in the side it has given us more balance look, and that we look a better side with them playing. Exactly, so your claim that supporters are "anti our young players" and are "taking their hatred out on Lowe" are plainly ridiculous. Once again you're slighly exagerating people's views. No one is saying they are the best ever. We just look a much better team with their involvement.

I'm afraid I can't!! You accused him of being happy to have a whinge on his website about why he had no idea why he was being forced out, and this wasn't the case at all.

I have to agree, and given everyone was training together under this Revolutionary set up, then you do have to wonder why nothing was ever said!!!! If things were working out, then you may have had to sit on your hands, but with things going down the pan, then why was nothing said to Poortvliet???? Well of course it may have been bravado, but even after the Forest defeat with only 22 points from 24 games, Lowe was still bigging up the Revolutionary Coaching Set Up at the AGM. For me, the error in the initial appointment was compounded by ignoring the bleeding obvious and not acting soon enough to remedy the dire situation we found ourselves in.

I'm sorry RinNY, but the minute you stoop to such lazy criticism of others, then you lose all respect and credibility. You've done it before, so it is becoming rather tiresome now. Just because you repeat it a number of times, it still won't make it right. The vast, vast majority of those supporters who believe Lowe is not the right man to lead us do so for validly held reasons. Of course it is their own opinion, but the vast majority know why they think that way and they put their thoughts across in a rational manner. I never had LeGod Third Coming as a rabid anti-Loweite (I even think he was fairly pro him at one stage, but I am happy to stand corrected) and he has given a number of reasons as to why he believes Lowe has made mistakes. Now of course you may not agree with them and you may even find some of them rather ridiculous (I don't BTW), but it is rather pathetic to dismiss his views with such a lame last line. I find it as rather lazy, ignorant and insulting, but then again it's also the argument of last resort.

I did try to point this out yesterday, a ridiculous and unfounded statement.

That also made me giggle:D:D

Don't worry, I was giggling yesterday when someone was trying to intimate that it was all part of the masterplan. Install Poortvliet, do whatever can be done to make him fail, get us deep in a relegation battle, boot him out, employ the person who they wanted in the first place, and then emerge as heroes:rolleyes::rolleyes: X Files meets You've Been Framed meets Opportunity Knocks meets Strike It Lucky How could have all been so blind that this was all a part of the act;)

Have you seen a new survey, because I'm sure the number you are quoting are for the one undertaken 3 years ago by The Independent and the PFA (£195,750)???? Would be interested to see if there has been any movement from the 2006 survey.

Suggesting you need to be a politician may not be a good analogy, given their record on turthfulness. But quite simply, if you're going to accuse Euell of things, then you could at least try and get them right, particularly in this case where the original claim was so clear cut.

That's far too many words to say, "I was wrong". LOL.

Amazingly, there's still one or two on here (see Up & Away's contributions last night), who still believe we're in with the Youth for the long term and there has been no discernable change of style/tactic/strategy in recent weeks!!!! I can only pray that Lowe is not one of them and it is not his intention to give it another go come the summer when we're safe. That's what worries me, in that I fear Lowe will really be really smarting now and even more determined to be proved right, and judging by his past inability to learn from his mistakes he should be taken out of the decision making process as soon as this season comes to a close.

I presume no one has yet got round to mentioning this to Wotte then!!!!

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the concept of financial management doesn't stand, but you cannot ignore that Wotte has adopted a much different approach to what goes on on the pitch than what we experienced in those first 28 games. And as for Stern, then Poortvliet was not happy to use John and John was marginalised from day one. At one time the lad now at Bournemouth got picked ahead of him as Poortvliet felt John did not fit in with his style of play. He even said that when John left and said City's 4-4-2 style of play would suit him better. But by keeping one of the strikers we would not have been increasing our wage bill, instead we would not have been decreasing it as much (subtle but different). And to compensate for that we could have reduced our outgoings on signing players (i.e. the Schneiderlin fee), our outgoings on other wages (Pekhart, Gasmi, Robertson, Pulis, Smith, Forecast etc). And then of course that is even before we get on to the flase economy and the £££££'s in lost revenues due to falling attendances. Like many things in business (e.g. are Marketing spends effective), whilst it might be difficult to categorically prove 100%, there is no doubt that there is a link between quality, success and attendances. We cut and cut and cut and found ourselves in a cycle of decline. In so much as we are in an overdraft position with Barclay's then you can be sure that they funded him. And whilst his wages will not be half that of Saga (maybe even a quarter), his fee would easily have covered Saga's wages. IMHO it's all about priorities and acquiring a potential young starlet who might make us a few bucks in a couple of years was not a priority when the alternative was David McGoaldrought playing up front. Barclays would probably have much preferred a £30,000 a month cheque made payable to Saganowski, than a one off lump sum payable to Strasbourg. The overall context may have been dictated by Barclay's, but within those constraints we have power of control over which decisions we make (within reason of course). The Schneiderlin fee shows we had room for manouevure, as did the other loans and signings made (along with associated agents fees etc). You could take it even further and suggest trading in Lallana and/or Surman and reinvesting that money elsewhere. Not necessarily something I would have advocated, but we had a number of different strategies we could have adopted. Additionally, the single biggest influence on a team is the manager, and we had choices there. With Poortvliet, we simply chose the wrong man.

I don't know what website you've been reading, because on his Official one he is quite clear that he is aware that he is being frozen out due to our financial position: " frozen out of the team, then left out of the squad entirely for last Saturday’s game at Barnsley, in the hope that I will be sold off to ease Southampton’s financial problems." To say he was whingeing about having no idea why he was being forced out is patently untrue.

Although I can see where you're coming from, I do think that's a little unfair. At the start of almost every season fans up and down the country go into the new season with a degree of optimism, almost blind faith if you want, but that's what being an irrational fan is all about. I'm sure supporters had their concerns, but you want it to work and you hope that this is the one season where it all comes off.

The use of the Senior players is a massive change. And isn't there a contradiction here in that Poortvliet didn't play them because of playing bonuses, yet Wotte is now free to play them (and pay their appearance bonuses)??? And from what we have seen on the pitch and from what we have heard from his own mouth, the managers style is a big change from what we have seen before (and a good job too). The bank will not have any say with regards day to day issues. Of course they will have to be consulted if we want to sign someone and extend the overdraft, but the agreement between the Club and the bank will be with regards the cashflow and in particular the troughs in funding throughout the year. There will be a number of milestones to achieve and restrictions on how much we can borrow, but we could easily have not spent the money on Shcneiderlin and instead utilised it to fund Saga's wages. Of course we must work within the financial constraints we are faced with, but that does not mean every decision we have made has been the only way we could have done things. (and as someone else has pointed out, a big factor in your cash flow projections are "revenues" and the route we went down was a serious false economy with regards the top line)

In which case you must be a masochist!!!! One win at home and some truly terrible performances, including losing regularly to our relegation rivals was not enjoyable to me. Of the 14 or so home games, I reckon I walked out happy three times.

Still went up under Crouch;) (and that's even if I let you knock the Sheff Utd game off!!!! but then you could ask to knock the opening game off from the other side as that was a big gate). It's an average and that's what averages are all about, and Sundance's/Canteen's claim that attendances went down under Crouch does not stand up to scrutiny (much like most of the other stuff he comes out with as well;)).

Average attendance for the 11 games prior to Crouch's reappointment in Dec 2007 20,585 Average attendance for the 12 games under Crouch from Dec 2007 to May 2008 21867 If you're going to make such claims, then at least check they stand up to scrutiny.

I don't think anyone is!! If anything, people have been supportive of those youngsters who have been put in a position that they are not yet ready for. Over and above expressing normal opinions about any player who pulls on a Saints shirt, I don't think any animosity has been directed at the younger players who are the innocent party in this naive experiment.