um pahars

Agree 100%. And to think that this little tt for tat started over the premise that Lowe had handled the PR correctly since his return. Now given his performance at the Headline event, i.e. the AGM, I think it is fair to suggest that nothing much has changed on the content side of his PR. He's wound down the intensity and number of columun inches, that's for sure, but think much of that has to do with the fact that it's gone shockingly bad this season and no amount of Chris Iwelumo quotes can gloss over that simple fact.

Plymouth are in freefall, they're the only team below us in the current form table. Their only saving grace with regards us is that they have 7 points on us (and a good goal difference, although that could easily be eroded!!).

It's not over yet. Plenty of time left for some goals to go in. Come on you Owls, Eagles, Robins & Swans. And an early shout for Tractor Boys and Seasiders tomorrow.

Nothing to do with knocking Lowe (honest), but one thing that struck me yesterday when I was thinking about going along to Staplewood was the fact we were playing Lewes!!!!!! Aldershot are in there with us and no disrespect to those teams, but I do wonder about the merits of playing such fixtures. It's hardly good practice to prepare yourself for games in the Championship and have to say someone in the league set up has got it wrong.

Plymouth 2 down, which is OK as they are in freefall.

I'm more interested in how they have continued to downplay/cover up/ignore the departures of Hockaday and Webster. Nothing like treating the supporters with respect and honesty is there!!!!!! And they wonder why people are pssed off with the relationship between the Club and it's supporters.

Yeah. 2nd in the 8 game current form table. IMHO they're out of it http://stats.football365.com/dom/ENG/D1/oform.html

That's the twisted logic which gives me a semblence of hope, in that the other sides are arguably just as sht as us and we only have to slightly outperform them. Barnsley may have two games in hand but given their points per game ratio, they'd be lucky to get 2 points. This evening is absolutely massive for us. Fingers crossed we get some go our way. Derby at home to Blackpool tomorrow and Forest away at Ipswich. Norwich are the only team in the group above us who aren't playing midweek.

We cant hope to have them all go our way, so I'd accept Donny winning, as long as the others dont.

Quite. The failure to implement Plan B was something I never got my head around. I think personal feuds, egos, SISU, and a number of other motivations were in play and the wellbeing of the Club was a second consideration. It would be worthwhile putting Dave Jones under the spotlight about this one as he was a key part of that Executive team, although I also accept that Hone was as domineering as Lowe is. Whilst Lowe was scathing of this, Jones called it a blip at the AGM (I bet that was an interesting lunch afterwards). It will also be interesting to see the Interim Accounts (they are due out soon), as that will give us an idea of how much it has been possible to save, and therefore possible to gauge how much was overspent (after allowing for the blip factor Jones alluded to e.g. Claus and other commitments), so we can at least quantify how much they "cost" us.

For their first season here, I don't think Hone/Wilde's approach was a million miles away from what Lowe was proposing. It was all about giving it one last push at getting promotion during the parachute payment, a time when we had to exploit every possible advantage over our rivals, in a hope that we would get to the only place where the numbers really work i.e. the Premiership. In fact Lowe had set his stall out by signing Rasiak (and others) and he had also been upfront in his support of Burley and the fact that he was prepared to back Burley in the transfer market. The general consensus in that first summer was that they probably spent £2m more than lowe had intended (naughty perhaps, but not something that was going to take the Club over the edge - that came the following summer!!!). That first season also saw costs reduced and net debt down to it's lowest level for years so it wasn't all a spendfest. The really stupid stuff came when they failed to implement Plan B the next summer, although Dave Jones tried to pass this off as a mere blip at the last AGM (so who was telling the truth??).

We are not the only ones to suffer from the nightmare of falling out of the top flight and I never for one minuite suggested we were, it was just an honest reflection of the problems that befall any "established" team that suffers relegation. But it is that massive drop in revenue that is the main driver of all our financial troubles (in fact the current Football Club Chairman doesn't even think we can wash our face in this division on normal operations). And for me, Lowe played his part (I would add that IMHO, a massive part), in our fall from the top flight, particularly when you consider that many think the appointment of Wigley to be his worst decision. So for Jonah to once again cast blame on everyone apart from Lowe seems to display a serious lack of objectivity. It is this lack of objectivity and even handedness that renders many of Jonah's other points (many of which are good) somewhat impotent as you tend to read them knowing there will be some serious bias involved. As for the warchest, here is something I posted a while back: Because the Club that started out that 2006/7 season was one that Lowe left and was still haemoraghing cash. Those that took over stemmed the flow somewhat in their first year, but then failed in their second year (in fact they probably added to the position). Here was Hone said about the warchest, and how the signings of the summer after Lowe were funded (the bits between Hone's quotes are the reporters bit). "What was clear pretty quickly after coming into the company was that there was no reserves, what some might call a warchest," said Hone. "Money that had been brought in by player trading was just used to keep the company afloat." Saints' yearly accounts released last week showed a loss of £3.3m in the 13 months ending June 30, 2006 - ironically, the day former chairman Rupert Lowe quit. During that period, Saints sold Peter Crouch, Theo Walcott, Antti Niemi, Nigel Quashie and Kevin Phillips for around £14m. "If not for selling players, the losses would be absolutely horrendous," Hone added. So without any warchest', how have Saints paid for their manager's close season rebuilding. "It's in staged payments for the players, but it's been done on debt by and large," Hone revealed (P.S. Rasiak, the £2million fee and his four year contract with a commitment of something like £3m was a Lowe decision completed in early May, almost a month before Lowe left)

Once again you seem to absolve Lowe for his part in the downfall of the Club's finances. Lowe's decisions (including the appointment of Wigley) were the ones that contributed to relegation which wiped tens of millions off the top line. It is that loss of millions that is the fundamental driver of our financial problems. Of course, poor cost control exacerbated the problem, but that does not alter the fact that losing tens of millions from the top line was what fcked this Club over. He didn't get a grip on finances in that first season down when almost £10m cash went out the door on normal operations (even after receiving the parachute payment). There were times when "we didn't know where the next penny was coming from" and negotiations with our biggest creditors started in earnest the minute we went down. The idea that this Club was financially robust when Lowe left is fantasy land stuff. Of course others came in and exacerbated, perpetuated & contributed to our fragile position, but once again your failure to acknowledge any role Lowe played in this scenario shows a serious lack of objectivity. But the poster was countering your assertion that it was the fans that brought them to power, so good to see you've corrected yourself. When Lowe gets voted out it's the fans fault, when Crouch gets voted out it's shareholder voting power. At least try and be even handed and objective! The second time in a couple of weeks that you have made the repeated the same inaccuracy. When Lowe & Wilde recquisitioned the EGM last season they did not have a majority support in asking Crouch to leave (if they did, then they wouldn't have even bothered with an EGM;)). Seems we've moved on somewhat from this morning when we were discussing Lowe's biggest failings. It looks as though we have a degree of agreement over the appalling decision to appoint Wigley, but have failed to get agreement over Poortvliet. I just fail to see how you can still support the appointment and tenure of Poortvliet and suggest that our poor performances this season have had nothing to do with his poor management.

I can remember him as Sundance, can vaguely remember his Flashman incarnation, but don't remember his others (The Bear??? and others). I've still got him down as Corp Ho trolling, just don't ask me how I know;).

You wish;) BTW you are coming to my boozer to stand your rounds.

And a professional charing of a meeting is not what took place. I have spoken to a number of people, many of whom would describe themselves as indifferent to Lowe and a couple who are lowe supporters (one of whom is very, very close to the man), and to a person they were apalled at Lowe's behaviour and in particular the antagonistic and confrontational way that he started the meeting. Your defending of this behaviour is very seriously misplaced and displays the severe lack of objectivity and even handedness that you so often demand form others. Your prefix and suffix to the part above just adds to your lack of credibility on the matter. It's a shame, because responses such as this just nullify the good points that you often make when you get out of your blinkered and defensive mindset (a trait you would appear to share with Lowe himself).

What a poor choice of hotel!!!

You wouldn't be able to!!!!!! Because I would be way ahead of you with my rope, pitch fork, petrol and kindling!!!!!!

And with this response you've just lost any credibility on this thread. I can see no way of reconciling your claims that he acted in a professional manner with your subsequent assertions above. Being a prat to read it out, doing it on purpose to rub Crouch's nose in it, it's his perogatiove to do what he likes etc is hardly the behaviour of a Chairman of a listed PLC company at it's AGM. There are many things to praise Lowe for (and I was more than happy to do so in the earlier stages of this tenure) and there are many things to criticise him for, but your continual blinkered support for him just discredits some of your other more valid points. Considering you are quick to accuse others of a lack of objectivity and even handedness, maybe you should take a look in the mirror in the first instance with regards this issue.

And people banged on about them then as well. Football always has been about putting the world to rights and arguing the toss down the youth club, pub or social club. There's always been ups and there most definitely have been downs, BUT the downs of today appear to be much deeper, darker and dangerous. I honestly don't think we have ever been close to the position we find ourselves in now. We certainly have never been this low with regards league position in almost a lifetime. We certainly haven't had the potential worry of two relegations in such quick succession. We certainly have never been on the verge of administration with the disastrous consequences it will bring. And worst of all, during most of the times that Jonah lined up, I think there was a degree of optimism around with almost all of them, something that we could hold on to and think that despite these setbacks, we can still see a way forward. Now I know you're an optimist nickh, but I think for the vast majority of supporters, they can't see anything buit dark clouds.

His opening act of that AGM was the first thing that happened. It was not a reaction to any event, instead a pre meditated decision. He could have held the moral high ground and brcik batted any of the stupid responses from the floor. Insead, he set the tone of the meeting from the off. That is not professional and certainly not the behaviour of a PLC Chairman. A professional would have risen above insults, Lowe jumped into the gutter at the first opportunity. To condone such behaviour, yet attack others for thier awful behaviour shows a clear lack of objectivity and even handedness. Your uncompromising defence of Lowe has been robust in the past, but even you have surpassed yourself on this one. Many would have settled for an average manager, but sadly Lowe employed an absolute disaster. Lowe should not be attacked for all every ill in the world, but to defend his antics at the AGM and then to defend his appointment of Poortvliet is stretching it somewhat. It is amazing that you cannot accept that Lowe (and others) ccked up on the appointment of Poortvliet. Talk about defending the indefensible (rational, objective and even handed, yeah right!). But I was just highlighting how poor Poortvliet was, to be coming out with such nonsense. Now of course if you're saying Wotte has got it wrong, then are you suggesting that this appointment is wrong LOL. But you've also conveniently skipped over the various other problems I highlighted with regards watching Saints under Poortvliet. 28 games which apart from the odd game were some of the worst football (and results) I think anyone has probably ever witnessed (and I include the Branfoot era in this one) and you suggest the manager had no impact on what we witnessed (fck me, what's the point of having a manager if the team will just play how the team will play). So many of those performances were down to tactics, team selection, strategy, subs, motivation, training etc, yet none of this ios anything to do with the manager. Your grasp on reality is really slipping. I think your perception is somewhat more hysterical when compared to the reality of the situation. Supporters will judge players, managers, boards and chairman by results. There will be some knee jerking, some animosity, some irrational hatred, but ultimately get success on the pitch and the peasants will be pacified. Unnecessary, irrational and not objective. Move along. Well let's be clear about it then, because it is patently untrue to start blaming grass roots supporters for the dross that we have had to put up with in recent years. LC, LM, MC and others should be treated as directors, custodians, whatever the minute they entered the boardroom and were then privy to making decisions about the Club. At that point they should be judged by their deeds & actions and ultimately the results achieved under them (and I would argue they were, with much criticism - some just and some unjust - being made about them). A director who is a fan, is no different to one who is not a fan. I'm not really sure what you're getting at, as all these people should be judged objectively and in the same manner, with no special dispensation just because they arer "fans". That status might hold sway with regards being empatheic to the supporters, but it holds no sway if things are going tts up on the pitch. But ultimately, it is not the fans who have got us in this position so I would counter that your initial assertion was very wide of the mark.

I have spoken to numerous parties (press, SMS staff, supporters, fair minded individuals), including someone very, very close to Lowe, and if you think his handling of the AGM, and in particular how he opened the meeting was very professional, then I seriously have to question your judgement (and objectivity), because it is totally out of kilter with what others are suggesting. If you want to we can move on to the way Crouch, Chorley and others also played their part in a tragedy of an AGM, but to suggest Lowe's handling was professional is astounding. When you post such things, I can only either assume you're spoiling for a fight or that your support of Lowe is blinkered. I do hope it is the former.

At least we agree on one thing. I never got my head around the appointment of Wigley, and given the fact it was never discussed or ratified at a PLC Board Meeting was astounding. Whilst he has been realtively quiet (by his own poor standards), he certainly hasn't been a church mouse by any stretch of the imagination. In opposition he popped up a few times on Solent, in The Echo and a number of times during the run in last season. And last summer you couldn't move for the revelations of Total Football, the Revolutionary Coaching Set Up etc etc etc. His antics at the AGM were appalling and I have seen nothing that displays empathy or a willingness to engage with the supporters (the forums have gone by the by). I think some of the reason he is keeping his head down is because it is going so horribly wrong (I don't even think Chris Iwelumo would say we're playing well nowadays!!). I don't do luck, but I accept that in individual games we have had some decsions go against us (but by the same token, you have to accept we had decisions go for us in other matches). However, over 28 games those injustices start to even themselves out and ultimately the table does not lie. What would you put it down to then??? I struggle to reconcile your train of thought with what I saw during those 28 games. I witnessed awful team selections, ignoring certain players, awful tactics, an unwillingness to change styles to match the opposition, or events in a game, comments such as the players only knowing one way to play (Wotte is now doing the opposite), saying the older players cant play with the youngsters (Wotte is now doing the opposite) etc etc etc. On top of that, I thought his use of the transfer market and our minimal transfer budget was poor (but I'll cut him some slack there as I don't think he was in total control). We never had the best set of players, nor the most amount of money to add to what we had, but I think our current position has loads to do with poor team management. I have never had a problem with living within our means and not overspending and although many would like to see us splash out and compete with the big spenders, I also think there is a fair degree of the acceptance of reality out there in the fanbase. We may moan that we want to kepp hold of Bridgey et al, but ultimately I think we accept our position in the pecking order and the spending power that goes with it. But in addition to running the Club in a prudent manner, there has to be the ability to spend that money wisely. Running the Club in a competent fiscal manner is only half the battle. I think you're being over dramatic with regards the fanbase here and I believe that ultimately those in charge are judged solely on the results that are achieved under their tenure. There will always be a minority against the leaders of the day, but the vast majority are rational and sensible with their judgement of those in charge. I was more than happy to commend Lowe during the first half of his tenure at the Club and I still stand by the belief that he did many good things for us during the first part of his tenure. Deliver a modicum of success and treat the fans with respect, and I think that respect and unity will flow both ways. Lowe managed the first one for the first part of his tenure (he never managed the second, but success on the pitch brought him some leeway). But towards the end of his tenure, and now in his second coming, he has failed on both parts and IMHO it is therefore ineveitable that he has lost the support of the majority of the fanbase. In the absence of success on the pitch, Lowe does not have the ability to engender a spirit of unity and togetherness. There might be some mileage in that, but why do you feel the need to bring LC and LM into it here. You could just have easily put RL or MW in there as well, as both of them were vocal when in opposition (it's these little slips that show you be less than objective at times). I see you've left the best bit until last. The idea that the fans are causing their own problems is IMHO, ridiculous. In almost every situation we are merely reacting to the poor decisions of others. I'm sure we have played our part in some events (be it protesting ot merely walking away fromt he club), but compared to other characters who have been on the scene, the fans are way, way, way down the list of those culpable for our demise. Supporters are only involving themselves and aware of boardroom issues because those in the boardroom have run this Club so appallingly in recent seasons. Get a decent board who treat the supporters with respect and a modicum of success and the vast majority will turn their attention elsewhere. The supporters have not created this situation by any stretch of the imagination. A rather ill conceived, ignorant and unnecessary response I'm afraid.

Never warmed to him as a player, particularly when he started to go public during the Branfoot protests (in much the same way that Wotte is going public now), although he did contribute on the pitch in his short stay. In our current position, beggars and choosers would mean I'd let him off those earlier indiscretions and welcome him here.