um pahars

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;)

The drop in average attendances from 22,000 last season to 16,000 is about 6,000 of which 5,000 is down to the Chairman;) Another 5,000+ which would take the attendance up to circa 27,000 are staying because of performances. HTH

OK thanks for that. You just carry on in your little dreamworld thinking that there are thousands of Saints fans who have had their weekends ruined because we won;)

Great article which resonates with me. Recommended reading IMHO, does anyone know thye author???? "Whichever way you cut it, the decision to exclude experience for youth, has undoubtedly cost us far more than it has saved, including quite possibly our status in the division, however less likely that looks this morning."

And one who didn't do a very good job at the end last time around, and one who's probably doing an even worse job this time around??? Because there is no one else out the big, wide world who would be able to do it:rolleyes::smt048:rolleyes::smt048

I thought he was comparing him to the young French lad we blew all that money on;)

Thats' not what Crouch said at the AGM!!!!!!!!!!! We did not have to go the whole hog with regards the youth policy at the start of the season and even given our financial constraints then we still had some leeway over who we bought in and over who we played.

And I find it perverse that you and others trot out such lame lines. We've had two threads running for those to register if they want Saints to fail just so we can be rid of Lowe & co, and both threads got a minimal response. I find it strange how you (and others) think that anyone apart from a couple of nutters get any pleasure out of Saints losing, or conversely get upset when we win.

And did you think the protest added to or detracted from yesterdays atmosphere?? And if you're being so demanding that we all stick together and rally round the team, then surely you could make the fcking effort to go to matches:rolleyes::rolleyes:

But that's only half of the plan (if that) and as I have said elsewhere any fool can cut costs. What proves someone's mettle is getting things right on the pitch and that strategy has been found to wanting big time, in fact it's totally bankrupt. And in a way it is the poor decisions made during the cost cutting that has also played it's role in the disaster that is this season. I wouldn't trust the man with any future decisions.

Well they can hardly be that passionate about such a claim then, which therefore renders the need for such jibes to be rather pointless. We're talking about a handful at best, which is why posts like yours and SOG's are rather tiresome and somewhat insulting in your insinuations. It's also quite lame and a bit like those who try and say people are against Lowe solely beacuse of his background, love of hockey etc, which is rather insulting to those who have very valid and well thought out reasons for their opposition.

Just because we stay up, and by God do I hope we can manage it, then IMHO it will not validate his plan one bit, not least because his plan has entirely gone out of the window. 50% of the Revolutionary Coaching set up didn't last 30 games, the youth experiment has been shown up as wishful thinking (I wonder whjat Chris Iwelumo would say now?) and we are no reliant on the experienced players that Lowe did so much to bomb out of the Club. We are where we are now, more by luck, than by judgement.

Rory Delap is no midget either. He's as tall as me and I'm a smidgen over 6ft.