um pahars

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.

You're a bit slow, he was saying the same stuff almost a month ago: “Now we have to get behind the new manager, we have to give him a chance." “I want the club to survive and prosper." “I also agree with Matt Le Tissier when he said the fans have got to unite behind the new manager."

I can assure you that I was on the right march:rolleyes: Come and have a walk next time and have a chat with your fellow fans, as opposed to just blowing off on here. I'll even make up a "special UN style blue flak jacket" for you, so that your presence won't added to the total. You might get to see how there was much more that united people on that leisurely stroll, than divided them, despite your poor efforts to suggest otherwise.

Personal??? You post up here and others, including myself, respond, augment, agree and perhaps ask quetions of. You're quick to demand answer of others and equally quick to deride their opinions and actions, so how come you've now morphed into a wallflower? Have to say I didn't think I insulted you, apologies if you were offended. But then again considering you've labelled posters, fools, bitter fools, drama queens, miserable, not very bright, bitter old fool, arrogant, obsessive, fool filled with spite, moronic, immature idiot, and embarrassment (got bored at this point), then I have to say it's quite laughable how all of a sudden you've suddenly become extremely precious!!!! Organising the protest, I'd call it more facilitating and arranging, but as I have said before, I don't think everyone is lining up behind all of Connor's thoughts and ideas, not least because I doubt we've all managed to have a cosy chat with him. I think the general stated aim has been made clear by a number of posters - A change at the very top and the desire that this would help move this Club forward. I'm not really sure what you're trying to achieve by polarising the argument and trying to concentrate on the small minutia of individual's opionions and views??? So at last you've accepted that everyone will not have exactly the same opinion, so at least we've got over that hurdle. And I would conjecture that the overwhelming majority (if not all) of those on the marhces were in agreement with the overall general aim, noted above. I would think it is up to individuals themselves to regularly reconsider their position in the light of a fluid situation. I don't for one minute think those who are protesting are the dumb sheep blindly following the organisers that you would like us to think they are. I personally can see no problem with supporting the team 100%, whilst seeking a change in the Boardroom and amongst the Senior Management of the Club. After all, following these protests the team have taken 4 points from two promotion challenging teams;).

I was actually visualising all the screen in screen shots of the games and whatshisname flicking between each game, with Kamara, Matty, Nicholas and whoever having heart attacks every 2 minutes etc etc etc. I was more than aware that you are allowed to go to games and I will probably be doing this one, but then again assuming we'll only get an allocation of circa 3,000, I would imagine the vast majority of our fans will be watching the events unfold on Sky;)

Are you asking him on a personal level or are you trying to suggest that by gaining some publicity and speaking to the Echo, this young ballsy lad must therefore speak for us all? And as I posted on another thread, I think you're being rather obtuse here, slightly disengenuos and at risk of becoming slightly boring. Like most marches/demonstrations/campaigns, people often come together from a multitude of standpoints, beliefs and desires to form an alliance. Very often, they're a coalition of forces brought together by an overwhelming common belief. Your notion that everyone has to be singing exactly from the same song sheet and all views must be identical is slightly weird IMHO. I would hazard a guess that the common belief that the marchers connected to SFC have held is that the Club is being run in a rather poor manner and that change at the top is needed. And I'm sure that within the marches there have been a number of inidividual beliefs about how this can be rectified. Indeed, just as when we ever search for a manager, whilst there is normally a common view that we need to replace (or find) a manager, there is very much disagreement over who thast replacement should be. However, that in no way undermines the initial general perceived and agreed assumption that change is needed. Your continued efforts to try and polarise the argument and focus on one area in particular are disengenuous, if not risible. Personally, I was campaiging for a restructure of the Boardroom to ensure we have the best possible set up and backing for the manager of the day. At the moment that man is Wotte and I would like a Board and backroom set up that gives him the best chance to succeed on the pitch. In demonstrating and taking part in the march, I did not have any problems lining up against others who may not sure that exact personal viewpoint and I never felt the need to mirror, stand behind or even criticise anyone else's individual comments or beliefs. The very fact that you have a problem is something you need to address on a personal level (actually I don't think you do have a problem with it, but instead you're trying to make mileage out of it by pretending to for some reason) .

What a strange analysis!!!!! Freedom of speech gives people the right (within reason) to do as they feel. How you, and others perceive it is irrelevant to that initial right to free speech. There's no fine line between free speech and how in exercising it, you are perceived. Once again I think you're being rather obtuse here, slightly disengenuos and at risk of becoming slightly boring. Like most marches/demonstrations/campaigns, people often come together from a multitude of standpoints, beliefs and desires to form an alliance. Very often, they're a coalition of forces brought together by an overwhelming common belief. Your notion that everyone has to be singing exactly from the same song sheet and all views must be identical is slightly weiord IMHO. I would hazard a guess that the common belief that the marchers connected to SFC have held is that the Club is being run in a rather poor manner and that change at the top is needed. And I'm sure that within the marches there have been a number of inidividual beliefs about how this can be rectified. Indeed, just as when we ever search for a manager, whilst there is normally a common view that we need to replace (or find) a manager, there is very much disagreement over who thast replacement should be. However, that in no way undermines the initial general perceived and agreed assumption that change is needed. Your continued efforts to try and polarise the argument and focus on one area in particular are disengenuous, if not risible. Personally, I was campaiging for a restructure of the Boardroom to ensure we have the best possible set up and backing for the manager of the day. At the moment that man is Wotte and I would like a Board and backroom set up that gives him the best chance to succeed on the pitch. In demonstrating and taking part in the march, I did not have any problems lining up against others who may not sure that exact personal viewpoint and I never felt the need to mirror, stand behind or even criticise anyone else's individual comments or beliefs. The very fact that you have a problem is something you need to address on a personal level (actually I don't think you do have a problem with it, but instead you're trying to make mileage out of it by pretending to for some reason) .

I can't see how you could hate him. Of course he was out of his depth and probably our worst manager ever, but he never intended to be that way, nor did he come across as an ar5e. But back to the subject, of the recent lot, both WGS & Sturrock would get a warm welcome from me.

Not at the same time we didn't. I've never met SaintRobbie (and I can justify that, I think).

Lost me a bit as most threads aren't closed, they jusy come to their natural end. Was just wondering if there was a new approach on here with Mods having to ask people to "justify" their posts, so thanks for clearing it up.

But it would be of interest, and it might lay down some ground rules. Are you saying that posts have to be justified? Is it a legal or editorial/moderating requirement?

I have had this post sat ready to go since I read Ponty's call for FF to "justify" his comments a few hours back. Didn't want to post it until perhaps FF had turned up for the evening, but now he has, it's nice to see I'm in tune with what FF is thinking. That's very honourable of you. But why has he got to justify his comments? What are the forum rules on this, have all posts got to be justified? Now of course, had you said FF may want to justify his comments, it might have come across somewhat diffferently, or are you really stating that he has to justify his comments?

Please tell me you did this on purpose LOL. As thick as it was from the beginning, hence the smiley/winky things and the text in grey which you obviously missed.

cringe :smt117:smt116:-\":smt100