um pahars

That's a strange post. Now if I have breached any of the forum rules, I would fully accept the ramifications, but for you to judge that I (or others) have started on NickG is slightly weird. Is this your view as a Mod, or just your personal view? As I have pointed out, going by the content of some of his posts he is hardly a wallflower, so not sure why he is now the precious (and protected) one. He has been constant in his condemnation of many things on here (notably the protest, the protesters and he has also been very critical of the young lad running it), so are we not allowed to challenge these perceptions, provide the answers he was demanding and put across an alternative viewpoint?

(To the tune of "The Lambeth Walk") When you walk down Wembley Way, You will here the Saints say, We're gonna stuff, Forest and Brian Clough © 1979 League Cup Final

But that's the whole problem with NickG. People respond to his questions or points, or they provide an explanation etc, but for some reason he just ignores them and then trots out the same rubbish time and time again. No idea what he's trying to prove with this style of asking questions/raising points and then ignoring the replies. They may not be the answers he wanted or expected, and they may not even be answers he agrees with, but rather than debate the points, he just disappears, only to pop up again and put across the same questions/points as on the previous day.

Shall we add this little outburst to : fools, bitter fools, drama queens, miserable, not very bright, bitter old fool, arrogant, obsessive, fool filled with spite, moronic, immature idiot, and an embarrassment (got bored at this point), And as I have said before, it's quite laughable how all of a sudden you've suddenly become extremely precious and a retiring wallflower!!!! Do you want your ball back now?

Which is a rather strange statement, given your posts on here and your continual refusal to accept that someone else might be doing or saying something that you might not agree with;) and your continual droning on and on and on and continually posing the same questions despite them being answered.:smt048

And I'm quite sure you were accusing those of us who had our doubts with regards Poortvliet in exactly the same way.**** It's all about opinions NickG, but sadly you would appear to be too one dimensional to appreciate that (as is regularly demonstrated by your posts on here). **** Now having seen your quotes above re Poortvliet, I think it's safe to say case close M'Lold LOL

And that's your opinion. We know what it is, you've made it abundantly clear, you've droned on and on, you've let us know about it almost every day for ages now, and I'm sure you'll carry on bringing it up every day going forward as well. You've ignored every post answering your points and then posted the same questions over and over again:smt082:rolleyes: They may not be the answers you want to hear, and they may not be answers you agree with or can resonate with, but your questions/points have all been answered.

And you keep being told;) Yet for some strange reason you ask the same question every day LOL:D

And what about me NickG, as I wasn't protesting against Wotte:rolleyes::rolleyes:?

I've become blase' about it. Can take it or leave it nowadays;)

LOL, it did cross my mind. Invite him back, but make it so impossible for him to accept, or make it so unbearable when he's on board that it never happens, or lasts. There has to be something tangibly different for it to be worthwhile. In the short term unity, spirit and togetherness, after that something to ensure we don't keep making these stupid mistakes!!!!!!!

1-1 Got draw written all over it, which is an OK result (providing no surprises from the other teams). We don't have to win every game.

Given the initial cost and losses of The Saint, then it might have been cheaper to bus/fly in all our far flung fans for free.

Why the sea change with regards Crouch? In your current and previous guises you have been hyper critical, abusive and extremely vitriolic, so just taken aback by your u-turn (or shall we say you're being amenable, diplomatic or pragmatic today?). IMHO, unless there is real change which involves either an independent & tasked CEO and/or Chairman replacing Lowe with reagrds the day to day running of the Club, then I wonder what appointing Crouch would achieve, as the key decision maker would still be in situ backed up by Cowen & Jones to give him control.

Or alternatively the personal conflicts (and much wider supporter issues) could be reduced if someone from the Lowe cabal, other than Lowe himself, represented that group's interest, then again we already have Cowen on board, but if there 25%(ish) is deemed to be worthy of two places, then how about Cowen and Richards. A compromise all round. Having Crouch on the Board may solve certain problems (having him on the inside ****ing out etc etc etc), but for me it does not solve the fundamental problem of the CEO/day to day operational position. Lowe's decision making has once again been found wanting this season and IMHO to move forward we need someone in that role who can take us forward. On too many major decisions he has made the wrong call, simple as that. I note your line on another thread about not being able to afford it, particularly as the current set up is cheaper, but as we have found out to our cost too often with regards footballing matters, you often get what you pay for. I understand Lowe is salaried for two days a week, so if the problem is 3 days salary for someone to take the lead, then I think it might well be a false economy to pass that by. Not only in terms of getting in someone who doesn't make as many cck ups and alienates the fanbase, but I also think this Club is worthy of a full time CEO and not the 2 days a week lip service it would appear ot receive at the moment (and missing games etc etc etc). And you also note that the last time we went down this route it ended in failure, well I'm not sure that I would let a prior failure (worth an argument in there in itself!) get in the way of trying to get it right this time. After all, we failed when we didn't replace Wigley correctly, but I don't remember too many people saying "stick with Poortvliet because we got the Wigley appointment wrong"!!!!! In a spirit of unity I would get Crouch on board until the end of the season. I would also start the search for a CEO and/or an Independent Chairman at the same time. Lowe can then step down from both in the close season and the only argument is whether he stays as a Non Exec, or whether Richards takes his place.

Sorry, but your underlying premise that we have assets that inflate our worth, or the subsequent claim that we could just default and erase the financial liabilities of the loan are just simply not correct, and shouldn't go unchallenged. In fact, they are in akin to those who believe Administration would be a cosy solution of extracting us from the current financial pickle and so create a very false position that some people might fall for. To suggest the Club is worth more just because we have a list of assets, but failing to include any liabilities and/or amounts owing is simply wrong and only tells half the story. Similarly, the notion that wer can just default and erase £20m+ liabilities is wishful thinking and something that should not be construed as fact. One or two obvious nutters, trolls or wind up merchants is not particularly something that I would advise getting too worked up over and certainly not something that I would use to justify the comments you have made. A sledgehammer to crack some nuts springs to mind. If it helps you to understand, then most things espoused on this forum are people's individual opinions, unless of course we're dealing in facts, so when I (or others) post stuff, then it's fair to assume that it is our own opinion. If it is really required (for the pendants [sic] out there), then maybe the Admin's should ensure that every post/opinion is suffixed or prefixed by IMHO!!!!!!!! (Just in case it helps, my assertion that, "and in doing so you are attacking/smearing the vast majority of supporters who validly hold and espouse genuine reasons that Lowe is not the best leader for this Club." was not for one minute suggesting the vast majority of supporters hold this view, after all how would I know, instead it is IMHO more that you are besmirching the vast majority of those who do actually hold that view and do so for more than the vitriolic reasons you have suggested). I have no idea why you're working yourself into a frenzy here, as I have simply tried to correct a few assumptions about how we as Club are valued, our liabilities and how it is not as easy to restructure our finances as you have claimed. Nothing personal, I just don't think incorrect stuff like that should be left unchallenged as it could well be picked up and run with by people who will get the wrong end of the stick. And now you're just being silly (probably because you're slightly wound up, so I suggest you probably just need to wind things in). I, and others, have posted a multitude of reasons / explanations / strategies to remove / keep / enhance Lowe & co or whatever. They have been genuinely held and espoused by both sides with regards this argument, so to suggest that you have not seen them sounds rather childish. Of course, you may not agree with them, but that's not really what you are saying here now is it.

And there was I thinking we were talking about Chairman/CEO's. Are you that bitter that you have to regularly use at least one of your three daily posts stalking me? In a way I'm quite flattered, not least because I can see how much you being wrong has eaten into you. I'm sure I said something like this at one point: "Lowe should be congratulated for dragging us in to the 21st Century, as back at The Dell we in danger of being left behind in the 19th Century. The improvements in ticketing, merchandising, hospitality, etc etc etc right down to an improved view for every spectator should be applauded" I'll try and resurrect the actual post just to get you even more wound up, because as you know I have only ever criticised Lowe since he rocked up in 1996:rolleyes::rolleyes:

No offence, but I'm afraid your first notion just undermines how little you know about the situation. If you think that if we defaulted on the loan, the "mortgage" lender would just take over the stadium and this would leave us debt free, then you're extremely wide of the mark. It simply would not work like that. If you want me to go into greater detail as to why this is not the case, then I will happy to do so,or alternatively I'm sure there are others who coluld list the errors in yuour rationale, as I have to go to work in a min. A quick analogy would be when an individual defaults on a house mortgage. Very often the lender will sell the house for less than the mortgage and the lendee is then still responsible for the deficit. We owe circa £20m+ on the stadium and there is no way on earth that Norwich Union would raise that much from it's sale (either for development land or as a second hand stadium to the phoenix AFC Southampton). The share price is a "theoretical purchasing price", but my response was aimed at your statement below: In my post, I was quite clear to avoid apportioning blame, instead I just reflected that the net worth, value, market capitalisation, whatever was massively affected by relegation and a prolonged stay. The blame, reasons, rationale, fault, whatever has been done to death (and will continue to be done to death) on a number of threads, and considering I clearly stated, "how much and where you divy that all up is very much an individual opinion.", I'm surprised you've decided to go down this route. Of course if you want reasons for why I believ Lowe was the major factor in relegation (managerial appointments, transfer policy, squad size etc etc etc), then I'm more than happy to share my thinking with you, but then again, given your next paragraph, it's probably just mindless vitriol being spewed and my venom being aimed at someone I loathe. If anything is mindless, it's the way you have deemed every argument, reason, rationale as to why Lowe is possibly/definitely not the right person to take this Club forward as mindless vitriol, spewed and then throw in loathe, venom etc etc etc. What you accuse some supporters of doing to Lowe is exactly the same thing you are doing to them, and in doing so you are attacking/smearing the vast majority of supporters who validly hold and espouse genuine reasons that Lowe is not the best leader for this Club. If you believe that Lowe is right for the Club, then whilst I may vehemently disagree with the sentiment, you are more than entitled to hold and espouse that genuine opinion and it would wholly wrong to dismiss it for whatever reason. I may argue with some of your lines of thinking, but I would never lazily brand it as vitriolic etc etc etc.

I reckon one of them could give Lowe a run for his money;). I'll let you decide which one I was thinking of LOL.

George Reynolds at Darlington wasn't a popular man!!!! Alex Hamilton at Wrexham (not sure if he was Chairman though). Guterman at Wrexham (and Chester). Ron Noades at various clubs (including stints as manager)!!!! Deacon & Gregory at Portsmuff. et al. We have not had a monopoly on poor Chairman/CEO's/MD's by any stretch of the imagination. For some reason Football either attracts nutters or turns normal, sane, rational people into nutters!!!!!!!!

I'm afraid that you're the one who is making the basic mistake here. It is all very well mentioning that we may have assets collectively worth more than our Market Capitalisation, but you have missed out a slightly bigger and more concerning number i.e. our debts and creditors. Being close to £30m in debt has somewhat more of an impact on the value of the Club than a few assets which would never cover this figure. As with most Club's in debt to the tune we are, our value is negligible, demonstrated by the fact that most Championship Clubs that have been sold recently, have been for nominal amounts, with the real cost being the acceptance of the massive debts. Our negligible value is down to our relegation from the top flight and the fact we continue to trade in this division (a division where the current Football Club Chairman believes we cannot wash our face on normal business). Therefore those who oversaw relegation and the failure to get promotion are arguably responsible for our current value (or lack of it), how much and where you divy that all up is very much an individual opinion.

And then we would have been 15 points clear after 20 games, 40 points clear by now and the bank (and everyone else) happy that we would be heading for the Premiership and all our monies would evaporate overnight. (See it's easy to talk out of your ar5e and it's not something you've got a monopoly on).

Once again you're either being obtuse, argumentative or dare I say it you're just not that intelligent (if I'm being honest, I think it's probably option 1 or 2). I have never suggested that someone who supports their team, hopes the manager will do well and will judge him on his perforamnces is narrow minded. You're being extremely disengenuous to suggest that is/was the case. However, what I said is narrow minded is your inability to recognise that others may hold and espouse an opinion that is different from yours, an opinion which although you, I and others may not agree with, is validly held, rationally thought through and sensibly espoused. As FF has noted, I think your one dimensional approach does you no favours whatsoever and this is clearly demonstrated by your inability to accept that others may genuinely hold a different opinion to yourself.

I think you're wrong in your assertion that you can't support Saints without hoping he does well, as there are quite obviously a number of validly held thoughts as to why that may not be the case. If it is genuniely believed that if Wotte failed it might result in the removal of Lowe and Wilde, which in turn could lead to a brighter future for the Club, then that is perfectly valid and rational position for someone who supports Saints to adopt. It is not a position I would support, but I fully respect Saints supporters to hold and espouse that point of view I have to say your position of ignoring these and immediately dismissing them out of hand, and even suggesting you cannot support Saints if this is how you feel, is somewhat beliggerent, arrogant and narrow minded.

LOL. Just pointing out how Coruch has actually been saying this for almost a month.