um pahars

He said (and I paraphrase): last April Rupert asked me to join ....... April/May I think it was. If you want to believe the bllsht about how and when Poortvliet and Wotte were appointed, when they were approached (cue Barcelona's post putting them with Van Der Waals in Southampton way before the end of the season) and why Pearson was dispensed with then you carry on in your dream world. Just makes you look like a mug for listening to (and taking in) the propaganda put out by those currently running the Club.

It was an open secret around St Mary's and everyone including Pearson had heard that both Lowe and Wilde were not overly enamoured by him. I think Wilde mentioned it to the SOS boys in the Spring and even as far back as that Central Hall meeting there was talk about Lowe & Wilde bringing their own men in. Whilst Pearson was fighting the relegation battle he was aware that he could well be replaced, but maintained a dignified silence (at least in public).

Absolutely, and both of them were pretty poor to go public/or at least not be candid with their thoughts on the manager when both managers had a relegation battle to oversee. The only difference being that with Pearson, as it was fairly obvious Lowe would get back in in a couple of months then Lowe's lack of support for Pearson was much more damning as he would soon be in a position to back up those words with actions (which of course he did), whereas Crouch could be dismissed as hot air and having no chance of executing his plan. PS plus the very fact that Poortvliet was fcking sht and should have been ran out of town meant that at least Crouch was probably making the right call LOL.

But Poortvliet and Wotte were already lined up way before he even met with Pearson. In fact he was quite open about his thoughts of Pearson quite a bit before the season even ended!!!!! Dead man walking and Pearson never stood a chance. And besides, even if Lowe did act and think as you suggested (which he did not), then why the bllsht about money issues etc etc etc. The whole appointment of Poortvliet was a done deal before he even had his feet under the table and once again the fans were bllshtted to.

At least Crouch was honest and upfront about it;) I very much doubt if he had got back in and then sacked Poortvliet he would have said it was for any other reason apart from I think he's sht and hopefully the new bloke will be better.

And Pearson met with Lowe about a week before somewhere around the 23rd May. Pearson was a dead man walking from the minute Wilde and Lowe teamed up earlier that Spring.

Poortvliet & Wotte were announced on 30th May. Interesting.

I presume these Action Points 1) Lowe to decide if he can serve on a Board with Wilde 2) Wilde to decide if he can serve on a Board with Lowe will be replaced with these ones: 1) Jackson to decide if he can work with McCloughlin post administration. 2) McCloughlin to decide if he can work with Jackson post administration 3) Barry Beardall to issue accounts 4) Beckham to be contacted ASAP 5) New photocopier needed in ticket office ASAP

Just as long as we're spared their postings (and even worse PM's!!!). I've still got some beauties that I read now and then to give me a chuckle.

He had one redeeming feature, i.e. his ability to be indiscrete and let almost anyone get their hands on some juicy details. And everything I have ever heard about that bloke makes me think we were very wise to give him a wide berth. But I still maintain that at the time of the Runnymede minutes in Autumn 2007, Lowe was angling for a return.

LOL, so now you're only allowed an opinion if you can match the wealth of those currently running it:rolleyes::rolleyes:. Considering all the fck ups that these"rich" people have made in recent years, I reckon there is actualy a negative correlation between personal wealth and ability to run a football club well. (and that's before we get on to the ridiculous notion that clever automatically = rich, and how wealth is the only measurement we should use).

January 2008???? If so, then I think those sniffing around at that time were the bllshtters being led around by Mark Jackson, so I'm not sure how much I would believe about the stories doing the rounds at that time. The Runnymede minutes in late 2007 showed that Lowe would be willing to serve on the board again (they even had him down as Director Of Football!!!!). I reckon he initially would have walked away had someone bought all his cabal's shares, but once no one came forward, then I always had an inkling he would want to come back as he thought there was some unfinished business and that he was shabbily treated (in his own opinion of course).

I'm outraged that you didn't trust me Ron!!!!!

Yes, I'm sure LSE main listing rule is 90 days and AIM listing rules are 3 months (not much in it, but they have to be different!!!!).

If the riff raff can clear the line, then here's some links. This is The Echo's taks on the Solent interview. http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/news/1881176.Lowe_blasts_those_who_helped_force_him_out/ And this is the Echo's follow up to the interview: http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/news/1887631.Lowe_guilty_of_ignoring_financial_realities_of_relegation_he_presided_over/

Three months is the deadline (as far as I can remember) and that will be end of March at the latest.

I would with the same side, even if it was felt that there are some better players on the sideline (Wotton for Gillett maybe, or Scheiderlin coming in somewhere). They played well and I think it would sending out the right message to stick with the same 11. 1-1 would be my early prediction.

If he is, then he's kept a much lower profile!!!!! Maybe he got kicked out when Jan got the boot, maybe Wotte doesn't like him or maybe he's still here revising our long term strategy with Lowe:D:D Given we never knew he was here (and what his contribution was), I think it's somewhat unlikely that we'd be told he's upped and left (after all we still haven't been officially told about Hockaday and Webster)

I played a record backwards yesterday and here's what I posted last night after doing so: That's somewhat revolutionary and blinkered isn't it? Fck me, who would have thought a mentalist like me would be able to praise Lowe for the good work he has achieved during his tenure???? You're just an old woman trotting out the same ill informed and blinkered rubbish with every dull visit. And you have the gall to say others post old tosh in here. Well Mr Pot, methinks you need to get back on the hob;)

I think Wotte has already proved that he is much more flexible than Poortvliet and he has also recognised the folly of the strategy that we went with for the first 28 games. No doubt about it, he has said it, but more importantly he has demonstrated it with his team selections and tactics on the pitch. Whether he has the ability to deliver survival still remains to be seen, but there can be no doubt he is willing to try something different. But that wasn't the argument/debate. It was how much he contributed to the previous 28 games farce, and there can be no denying that he was in there with Jan and the others in the Revolutionary Coaching Set Up. Whether he is able to just throw away all the baggage from the first 28 games and move us forward is something we will have to judge him on in the run in.

I would agree that this approach was adopted this season, and I also agree that any fool can cut costs. But where those who really earn their money come inn to their own forte, is by growing revenues or at least holding on to the important revenue drivers of a business. I maintain that cutting so deeply in to the playing squad had a detrimental affect on results (and attendances), and ultimately cost us more than it ever saved. Very difficult to evaluate and justify beyond doubt, but with each 1,000 bums equating to £500,000 over a season, it's not difficult to see how the drop in attendances caused by poor performances starts to eat into any perceived savings by reducing the quality of the playing squad. But these cuts were instigated from day one and although attendances are driven by season ticket sales (which were relatively poor) the most recent game was a sell out and the prior season averaged 22,000+. The bank would not have insisted on specific wage cuts, nor would they have just looked at costs in isolation. They would have focussed primarily on the troughs in the cashflow and these are affected by revenues as much as costs. Of course fixed costs such as playing contracts are much more definite than forecast attendances, but the 6,000 drop in revenue equates to £3,000,000 in revenue. I'm not suggesting for one minute that these numbers would have been returned had we kept all our squad intact, BUT there is most definitely a strong case for arguing that by leaving us with no recognised forwards in a game where goals win points and plaudits (and bums on seats), we were asking for trouble. To keep one of strikers, we would have to stop the decline in attendances by just under 1,000 supporters and given the contribution from Saga to date, I don't think that is an unrealistic assumption. Of course cuts had to be made to the playing staff (and elsehwere), but I think the cuts were too drastic, and ultimately they were a false economy.

If Wotte was not involved in team affairs, then why did the OS state he was on numerous occasions, why has he been involved in transfer selections, contract decisions, why was he wheeled out alongside Jan at fans functions, at Q & A's at the AGM etc etc etc. To claim Wotte was not directly involved in first team affairs goes against everything we have seen and heard from last summer. Jan was ultimately in charge and the buck stopped with him on all decisions, but Wotte played his part. What speculation is it addressing??? Not really sure what you're getting at here.

Do you think it was a false economy to push him out of the door, given that results and respective attendances have dwindled, probably as a direct result to a lack of wins at home?

All depends what you mean by fickle??? I would argue that the vast majority of sensible supporters are fairly rational in their appraisal of Lowe, and in particular his performance as CEO/Chairman. When things were going well Lowe received the plaudits and he received some very good wonga. Fair play to him and I don't think anyone has a problem for people being rewarded for doing a good job. But when things didn't go so well and he made a number of very poor decisions, then he was quite rightly held to account. The very fact he replicated these errors and appeared unable to learn from them, meant his time to step down had come. Quite simply, he's past his sell by date and has shown nothing since his return to demonstrate that he has been able to repeat any of his earlier successes. In fact, the decision making in his second stint is probably even worse than some of the mistakes he made first time around!

The same thing happened to Meridian News when he didn't like something they said about the way he handled the Dave Jones situation. He doesn't do opposing views very well;)