um pahars

I don't think much really needs to be said on this one. A few people have embarrassed themselves on this board today with their personal attacks on a 16 year old and as you quite rightly say it renders their own beliefs invalid and does indeed make them look rather foolish. Any average person with an ounce of common decency would be able to judge what is right and what is out of order on this thread. They've hung themselves today.

And if that is your opinion, then I have to say it doesn't stand up to much scrutiny!!! Whilst there is no doubt that Lowe (and whoever is in charge) is beholden to the bank, there is nothing to suggest that Barclays would not work with another CEO/Chairman without significant investment. Indeed, we have had two changes of CEO's/Chairman in the past year, both without significant investment, and Barclays have been more than happy to work with both Crouch and Lowe. Therefore your last claim that Lowe going would automatically result in administration had no basis in fact and it is a rather ludicrous opinion as well. But you have missed out a much larger number of fans who have deserted the Club through nothing more than either being disaffected, disenfranchised, fed up, felling that they're not getting value for money etc etc etc, who won't be returning unless there is a marked change in what they see on the pitch. No amount of procrastinating on here, in the Echo or on the OS will bring them back, and they are a much bigger force with regards numbers and their effect on the club's finances. Those who are protesting are a part the rump that is left. The overwhelming majority of them will still go to matches (I know I will), but the fact that even their presence may not be enough to keep our head above water brings us back to all those who no longer go. And rather than moan at the rump who still go (even if they have a good moan and protest), your time would be wiser spent working out why those who no longer come along have taken that decision, and how they can be won back. And as I and many others have said before, rather than trying to win round and change the minds of thousands of disaffected and disenfranchised fans, wouldn't it be easier for just for one or two individuals to stop behaving in a selfish manner? You can continue to blame the supporters (whether they still go or not) for the demise of this Club, but that would be missing the point. The real fact is that supporters attendance patterns, their perceptions and their reactions, are purely the direct result of the appalling way this Club has been run in recent years. This appalling leadership by a number of individuals and groups has crystallised to where we are now with into one of the most wanting regimes we have ever witnessed, both in terms of failure on the pitch and failure in the boardroom. Rather than continually blaming supporters and suggest they need to change their logical and resultant reactions, you would be much better off seeking to change the habits, actions and results of those in charge.

And nor does it show that there is any overwhelming desire from the vast majority of supporters to go into administration just so we can be rid of Lowe & co. But sadly that won't stop Frank and other misguided posters pretend that it is the case and then continue to shout about it at every opportunity in an attempt to cloud the issue and create an entirely false argument. It's exactly the same lazy and cheap shot trotted out by some who say people are only against Lowe because of his background, snobbery, fondness for hockey etc. It conveniently misses the point. A post similar to this was doen before in which posters were asked if they would accept relegation if it meant getting rid of Lowe, and the vast majority once again sadi no. It didn't stop the falsehood being trotted out again a few weeks later, so I wouldn't expect a NO vote on here to have any different effect.

And I have to say the way he hung Poortvliet out to dry is one of the reasons I haven't warmed to him (along with not delivering, but being quick to shoot from the lips as well). It appears he would sell his granny down the line!!!! And judging by Poortvliet's comments after his dismissal, it would appear that he feels the same. It's obvious that the line from the Club is that Wotte is his own man, a fresh start and he shouldn't be blamed for what happened in the past, but this attitude and the way Wotte was quick to rubbish Poortvliet's tactics etc, when he himself was in it up to his neck is rather shoddy. As has been pointed out, the Revolutionary Coaching Set Up was interchangeable, seamless, all helping each other and no fixed boundaries. Wotte and Poortvliet appeared as a double act down the pub, at the AGM, after match press conferences and debriefs and he was involved in transfers in and out (e.g. he recommended offering Dyer a new contract). So to try and distance himself from his involvement with the Revolutionary Coaching Set Up is somewhat tacky and gives me concerns about his integrity.

Their directors recently put in something like £14,000,000+ which I imagine brings with it a certain degree of respect and gratitude. Now if Lowe, Wilde and/or Crouch were to put that sort of money into the Club, then I'd imagine we would look on them in a slightly more positive light.

I think the issue might also be the fact that Murray and others have dipped into their own pockets, have developed a real empathy with their supporters, is respected, has only made a couple of cck ups etc etc etc. Seriously, the bond between Charlton's board, it's supporters and the community is way, way different to ours and so is the reputation and legacy of those in charge. We may be in the same position, but how we both got here is massively different (the only common bond being 3 in a season and our current positions). With Lowe the number, repitition and magnitude of the cck ups is the problem (and there are many, many, many others as well on top of that, whereas Murray et al have got nowhere near his record of bumbling incompetency).

I can't vouch for the other results, but I too think we will pull it off tomorrow. As with the Swansea match, I reckon the support will be good and PNE will come unstuck. 2-1 win

But we're nothing like Charlton. They have Directors who have pumped in some decent wonga into their club. They have a progressive and inclusive vision about the relationship and the importance of their supporters. Their supporters, board and club have a very strong bond, built over a period of sustaining campaigning and protests just to keep their club alive, then to reclaim The Valley and then to rebuild The Valley. We might be about to be on that road of rebuilding our Club, so maybe the comparison might be true in 20 years time. The only thing in common with us is that they also found out that by going through 3 managers in a season is probably a sure fire way to get relegated.

German made, for sure, but a staple part of many countries (including Hollands) armour.

It looks as though Lowe's PR advisor is now working full time with Wotte.:rolleyes: Someone get him out of the firing line, please. Wotte, Hou je mond dicht

It reads: PROUD OF OUR BOYS

We won't be throwing it all away, it will still be there, all that might be going is the shell company. The Football Club will remain in whatever guise that may be. Even if the worst came to the very worst, a new Southampton Football Club will be playing football somewhere, even if it is some way down the footballing pyramid!!!!! I'm not saying that it won't be painful (because I think it will cause us problems for a long,long time), but it won't wipe away the past and it certainly won't prevent us having a future. I took us until 1897 to become a limited company (Southampton Football & Athletic Company Limited), we didn't get into the Football League until the 1920's and because we may have to be reborn under some other legal/formal name, it will not mean The Saints will not have a past, a present nor a future.

SISA have about 4 shares. I presume that despite their stance they've bought these to ensure they get entry to such meetings. I think Perry goes in as the shareholder representatve of SISA (although I think I rememebr he may even have a couple of his own for the same reason) and as you say Chorley goes as someone elses (???) proxy. However, the rules are fairly strict in that only shareholders can/should speak at these meetings (proxy's certainly shouldn't be given an audience if you're going by the rules). I think (happy to stand corrected) it was at last years AGM when Wiseman waived this. PS I'm not sure what the rules are regarding proxy's making gestures such as tossing 30 pieces of silver are!!!!!

I mentioned this in another post as the way it has panned out these two should be hanging their heads in shame You've managed to lose one manager in two weeks and then another in six months!!!!!!!! About the only one they have delivered on, of course the other side is that by paying peanuts they've certainly delivered monkeys. And so far we've lost Pearson, Poortvliet, Hockaday, Webster (have I missed anyone out?). I think if the price was right, we'd be knocking out players, that sais I don't really think we've got any left who would attract the buyers. Probably regretting that one!!!!! And regretting that one as well!!!! And they have of course cashed in on the Bale future payments. PR is not really one of Lowe's strong points, so he really should have kept quiet on this one. I never really go this one, but we've had our own McGoldrick and BWP little saga. The problem with coming out with stuff like this is that it will probably come back and bite you on the ar5e, and in this instance it has smacked them straight in the chops.

Don't you think it would be good of the Club to share such information with its supporters (not the nitty gritty of course), after all Hockaday was lauded as an integral part of the Revolutionary Coaching Set Up not too long ago???? They sing it from the rooftops when they want to and then brush it under the carpet. And what do you think of the reply that the Echo has covered it, but we won't??? There's some great mutual respect being shown by the Club here. Who's in charge of PR???

Would be interested to know what provoked his posturing and pontificating at the very start of the meeting. I wonder what made him open up the AGM in such a provocative and unnecessary manner. Did he get an evil eye from Duncan, did Perry give him a secret V. When you deliver the opening gambit and set the tone for the rest of the meeting, it's rather hard to imagine how you could have been provoked:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Of that day;)

Ditto

He's certainly not as bad as Poortvliet. If some good came out of Poortvliet's tenure, it's that the Branfoot household raised a cheer that he might not be deemed our worst manager anymore!!!!

I certainly don't see Administration as the magic wand that will solve all of our problems, but conversely I don't see it as the end of the Club either. Certainly the end of Southampton Leisure Holdings PLC, but there will always be a Southampton Football Club. The existing Ltd Co. wasn't formed in 1885 and just because we may have to change the ownership again means nothing if the heart of the Club is still there. I'm sure it won't be pretty the other side of Administration and I'm sure it will be hard work (probably for many years), but I refuse to accept that administration will be the death of my Southampton Football Club.

Did I miss that????? PS WHat time did you get away last night??? We ended up staying up until 2 sorting it all out!!!!

If you wanted to look for what will cost the Club's existence, then I think you would do better to look at (a) Why we lost tens of millions from the top line which put us into a position where our finances became untenable, and (b) Why we are going down to Division 3 and therefore almost definitley administration. The two years in between these episodes also saw some ridiculous and reckless decisions (the second year being much worse than the first), but the overriding factors which could cost the Club's existence come eother side of these.

Two things. Firstly this debate was with reference to Lowe's perceived behaviour at the AGM. It's bad enough having Jonah divert the issue, without having you pop up with your little gems:rolleyes:. If you want to create another thread with regards Crouch's poor behaviour at the AGM or his worst mistakes then feel free to start another thread. Secondly, you're obviously struggling with the concept of what goes on at AGM's and how for many shareholders/supporters it's the only time they get to question the board on their performance in recent months and their plans going forward. AGM's aren't just supposed to be about approving accounts, appointing auditors etc, they're an integral part of how the Company and it's Board interacts with it's shareholders. You would expect the Board to outline it's strategy going forward, outline where it has been and it is totally normal and good practice for shareholders to question the Board on either.

I'll certainly be going along again. In Bar Risa before and then a leisurely stroll with friends and like minded supporters to register our point. It was a really good atmosphere last time, about the only thing in recent times that had a spirit of camaraderie and pleasantness about it (certainly not the bloodbath I saw some idiot predict on another list!).

As we found out to our cost in the last days of the Premiership, when different managers brought in different players to play different styles and these different managers all had different favourites etc etc etc. There's definitely fall out when you get relegated and have to replace the "Premiership Stars" [sic], but IMHO, the managerial merry go round has once again contributed to our demise. Ignoring Wise & Basset and D & G, we've had 5 managers in the three and a half seasons we've been down.