um pahars

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.

And as we're being so civil this fine morning, how about, What do you think is/was Lowe's biggest mistake(s)? And how do you now view the appointment of Poortvliet? And what changes (if any) would you like to see at the Club, if (a) we stay up, or (b) we go down?

So we're all going to go it alone and do our own stuff then, fair enough by me (although I still feel it is a missed opportunity). Just finding it slightly hard to reconcile your stance and the belief of spontanaiety (sp), with you trying to establish a march away from the ground and setting up a website etc etc etc. If you're so anti people getting organised, don't believe in a leader etc etc etc, then why go down this route?

Not sure about the plural use of current issues. The only mention with regards the PLC status was in response to a question posed regarding whether it was hampering the chances of getting investment. Crouch's response was that he believed it wasn't deterring people any more than if we were a "private company". So I don't want to burst your bubble, but your ditty above sounds quite a bit more expansive than what Crouch actually said. All, some, or even none of our current issues may, or may not, be down to the PLC status, but that's not what Crouch said either way.

I thought you said they didn't have any members;) Just as you need to distinguish between Lowe's cabal and SFC, you need to distinguish between the Trust and it's current board. With the right direction, I still think it could serve some purpose, even at this late stage and after it's recent fence sitting, and perhaps it just needs the right people to start leading and shaping it. Why don't you put yourself forward to give it some impetus and force a change of direction? Why don't others do the same? Alternatively, if we're saying these things never work out, then we'll have to all do this individually, which IMHO is a shame, as I think a sense of common purpose and unity is what is needed.

Saint Martini (based in Holland) has always been fairly middle of the road with his contributions and this is what he had to say about Wotte: The thing with Wotte is that he never manages to stay anywhere long and even though he has held higher profile jobs then Poortvliet I don't think he's a better manager. He just comes over a bit more sophisticated and has more smooth talk. It might work on the short term but I can guarantee you he will be gone with 1.5 years. And from everything I have read and gleaned from over in Hollnad, he is not that well regarded (in fact many have it down as the complete opposite). Just as I genuinely hoped Jan could pull it off, I hope Wotte will do the same. He and his team will get my support at matches, so I'm happy to live up to my side of the bargain (that's not unconditional support BTW).

And in that interview of the 7th Feb (reported on 7th and 8th on the OS) McMenemy (and Hiley) are quite clear that the hunt for a replacement for Burley is still going on, that Gorman and Dodd are caretakers etc etc etc. They were never appointed permanently, they were always just keeping the seat warm, the problem was that they were left as seat warmers for too long. Given that the window was closing as Burley was leaving us, and that Burley going wasn't a shock, then Crouch et al should have got their act together much quicker to install someone who should have been a praty to any transfer decisions (even if there were financial drivers). They dillied and dallied too long IMHO, and I have no problem saying that. IMHO, the period of instability also added to our problems on the pitch which meant the position Pearson inherited was worse than it might have been.

And that sounds fair enough. I don't think his CV is that good, particularly when you consider how many of his roles panned out and how his tenures are perceived, but of course that's just my perception. However, I also can't help but think if he was any good, then he would have been able to have got a better job than running our ressies!!!!

But that's just a part of the same interview where he then says they're going to take their time to get the right appointment etc etc etc, which also adds the bit about the Club taking their time to find Burley's replacement. I honestly struggle to see anything in that interview, reported in two articles on the OS, that suggests, or even implies, that Dodd and Gorman had got the job(s) on a permanent basis. And as I said above, I think Crouch, Lawrie et al handled the replacement of Burley poorly, but I don't think there's anything that actually shows Dodd and Gorman were appointed on a permanent basis (and there's plenty of quotes and eveidence that suggests they were only caretakers). It may not have gone to the wire if Pearson had come in earlier, but I doubt Wilde and Lowe would have stayed away. IMHO Wilde made his decision to oust Crouch when Crouch rebuffed Wilde's advances for a seat on the Board. Not long after Crouch called Hone & co's bluff, Wilde went public in The Echo saying something like "Leon and Trant deserve a pat on the back and Leon and I are working together". Crouch wasn't interested in reciprocating this advance, Wilde felt jilted and so ran into the arms of Lowe. The cards were already dealt before Crouch dillied and dallied over replacing Burley.

Let's just hope Fagan can hit the Bullseye!

Oh, I agree. As I said above, the minute Scotland came sniffing we should have been looking to line someone up. Even though Burley wasn't the favourite (can't remember who was), there was a chance he could quickly leave and we should have been looking to replace him straight away. IMHO the dillying and dallying by Crouch, Lawrie et al was a mistake, it's just that I had it down as a "too long" holding pattern, as opposed to a poor appointment. A subtle difference, if you catch my drift, which in no way excuses the fact that they wasted too much time in getting a replacement in.

I imagine they think it might bring about change at the Club.

And not an attributable quote, merely something from the editor, but there is also: It allows the Club to take their time over the hunt for a replacement for George Burley.

Both of them mention "forseeable future" and I certainly never read that as permanent. In the second one there is the line, "We always said we would take our time to make sure we appoint the right person and that is what we are doing." And I read that as them saying we are in the hunt for someone, but there is no rush as these two are doing alright for now. I certainly never read anything in there to suggest it was permanent, but obviously some people did read it that way. DellDays, did you think these two were appointed full time and permanent??? (And PS this is no defence of Crouch, Lawrie et al, because IMHO the minute we knew Burley was going, or in with a shout of going, we should have been looking right then, and not wasted 5 or so matches including the FA Cup tie. They dillied and dallied too long in replcing Burley!!!!).