um pahars

Agreed. I'd rather have to play against Davies once, than have him turn out for Norwich in their relegation battle.

With all due respect RinNy, it would now appeat that you have changed track and rather than arguing that there is no alternative out there (which is quite frankly ridiculous), you're now now arguing that someone else couldn't do any better. A subtle, but succinct change in your position. The argument as to whether or not someone else could do better is purely hypothetical and subjective either way, but that's a world away from saying: "if there is genuinely a better alternative out there to replace him. I haven't seen any suggestion that there is" and "We tried it, with the Hone/Hoos pair, and it did not work." I think the case against tha has been made very strongly on here in recent months in numerous threads. My simple reply (because to be honest I think the case has been so well argued) is Jan Poortvliet, the Revolutionary Coaching Set Up, the strategy of youth and ultimately our legue position!!! QED, but there is also a different strategy with regards transfers (in and out), diferent priorities, a different coaching structure, different wages policy, different pricing structure and a whole host of different ways of running a football club, even given the financial constraints that we have to work in. There are no guarantees that this would produce better results, but just as saying there are no alternatives to Lowe, it's rather naive to suggest things couldn't be done differently. The CEO of a football club, and I believe it's even more acute at our Club, is central to everything on and off the pitch. Our CEO was at the forefront of dispensing with Pearson and employing Poortvliet and Wotte. He is involved in footballing issues (the only debate is to what extent) and he was central in installing the Revolutionary Coaching Set Up and the strategy that accompanied it. Ultimately our CEO appointed the manager. Then as I have said above, I think you're being rather naive if you don't think there are a number of different approaches/strategies/decisions that could have been made, with of course the managerial issue being the single biggest of them. Without wanting to appear too rude, the line that people are against Lowe for any other reason other than his failings is somewhat cheap, lazy and insulting to those who hold well founded and thought views on his tenure as CEO/Chairman. I fully accept a very small minority have issues with his background, but the vast majority judge him in a rationa and balanced manner, and by the standards he himself requested, i.e. on results. And if you think that off the field issues do not have a major impact on on the filed issues (appointment of manager, transfers in/out, overall strategy etc etc etc), then I think you somewhat misjudge the impact the CEO, the board and their decisions have on a football club.

I think we're somewhat clutching at straws in trying to trace the root of our problems back to the sacking of Nicholl. There have been almost 20 years and a number of opportunities to sort things out!!!

There is no doubt that the power to decide our destiny rests with perhaps only 3 or 4 people, but I wouldn't discount the impact protests, boycotts or whatever might have on them. I absolutely agree, but my point is countering those who stupidly claim there are no viable or available alternatives out there. That excuse/reason for sticking with Lowe has no substance whatsover. There are viable alternatives out there, if we have the desire to look fo them, but I fully accept that's not the same as getting one in and it will never do so until there is a change of heart by some of Lowe's cabal. That's my argument here, not that it is possible for us as supporters to get someone in, just that getting someone in is a viable alternative if only those with the power would consider it. OR until some in his cabal have a change of heart, which is more likely (even if it is remote) than the two scenarios you have mentioned above.

Go and have a look at who was Chairman, or more importantly where the balance of power lied when the players you mentioned were signed. That should answer your question. At least we agree that Lowe and Wilde are a part of the problem. I think you're right, in that I also think Crouch doesn't covet any position of day to day power. He certainly thinks the current Chairman/CEO and managerial set up needs changing, which is something I agree with, but after that I actually think he would rather not be involved. As for just saying the dice have been rolled and we have to accept our fate, well whilst there might be some truth there, I also think we still have a degree of latitude. After all, Pearson came in with about the same amount of time left and used the loan system, with assistance from Hoos, quite judiciously. In fact, I would conjecture that without Wright, Lucketti, Perry etc we migth have gone down last season. IMHO, there is still time to make some final changes to the set up to give is our best possible chance of staying up, because I have a real worry that going with what we have may not be enough. As for saying Wotte only has been here 3 games, well I do think that's stretching it somewhat, as he has been complicit in all of the pre-season and the disastrous run of 28 games as a part of the Revolutionary Coaching Set Up. I'd argue it's not even the same as promoting from within, because Wotte was almost "joint manager" with poortvliet!

And your alternative is what?? Sitting here, fingers crossed that the "Revolutionary Coaching Set Up" comes off?

When we replaced Wigley, his replacement did not work out, but I can't believe for one minute that people were therefore advocating we stick with Poortvliet "because the last time we repalced a crap manager it didn't work". Sit back and think aboiut it logically. Are you really saying that just because we didn't get a suitable replacement last time around, then it should preclude us from trying to get it right this time? It's an absolutely ridiculous (and rather backwards and defeatist) argument. A new CEO and/or Chairman will not be a guarantee of success, but it might just be the only hope we have, as the current regime is just taking us backwards. If people argue that Lowe has some traits and a strategy that they belive in, then although I may nto agree with some of them, it is actually a logical position, but the idea of sticking with someone who is sht just because last time it didn't work out is somewhat lame. And what is the solution in the absence of the above, because from where I'm sitting, I can't see any major infusion of cash on the horizon? So you're just advocating maintaining the staus quo and dying a slow lingering death (or it might actually come quite quickly if we carry on at this rate). Hardly a strategy that's got me excited. And when you (and the rest of us) discuss ridding the Club of a failing manager, do you only sanction it if you've got the replacement lined up, vetted and approved??? Or do you accept that there probably is someone out there who could hopefully do a better job? To write "if there is genuinely a better alternative out there to replace him. I haven't seen any suggestion that there is" sounds rather ignorant of the big wide world out there. A big wide world where there are probably as many CEO's/MD's as there are managers (in and out of work). I don't think it will be a walk in the park for whoever comes in to replace Lowe, or Poortvliet (or Wotte), but to trot out the same lazy line that no one has been presented for your approval is disengenuous, at best.

I think it's fair to say that you're not au fait with our recent history then!!!! Whuch is hardly a ringing endorsement of Lowe and Wilde. Crouch in a day to day capacity is no solution, but at the same time the idea that Lowe and Wilde are our best hope of salavtion is an even more mind boggling solution. As long as we sit here saying, "there is no alternative to Lowe", then we will never move forward.

A very interesting read, thanks for the link. One of my concerns is that there is no way Lowe could engender such a spirit amongst the supporters, the city and the wider catchment area, due to his past and present failings. Whilst that may not be a massive hindrance when the money is flowing in from other sources, it certainly starts to bite when you find yourselves in the predicament we are in.

Absolutely. There are probaly a number of suitable alternative candidates out there, but the issue is that first of ll those with power have to accept the need for a change.

Then why were they unveiled as a pair, then why was Wotte involved in team selection, then why was Wotte involved in contract decisions, then why was Wotte involved in transfer decisions, then why did Wotte comment on first team matters, why was he wheeled out with Jan at the AGM to answer questions etc etc etc etc etc etc????? Wotte was all over the first team and the Club were not shy in telling us that (he even went out to the fans chats down the pub with Jan!!). The way that Wotte has disassociated himself from everything Pre January 23rd 2009 is quite risible, as is the spin eminating from the OS and SMS towers who are now trying to make out it was all Poortvliet's doing and Wotte never had anything to do with it!!!!!

I absolutely agree, in that for Lowe to be removed there would need to be a withdrawal of support for him by either Wilde or a few others. Until that point, then no one is going to put themselves forward for a job that is not vacant, and similarly no one is going to go hunting for someone when they can't promise them a job. But this is something that I cannot agree with in any shape or form as it just doesn't stand up to any semblence of scrutiny. How do you think other Club's recruit their CEO/MD? There are as many CEO's/MD's out there as managers, so there must be a market in potential candidates out there. You won't find anything if you don't want to look for it.

But I'm not talking about people who wish to inject cash, mainly because I think you'd either have to be stupidly rich, ot just stupid, to invest in us. I'm talking about a salaried CEO to take over from another salaried CEO. There are as many CEO's/MD's out there as there are managers, and there is no real difference in the recruitment of either. They are out there if there is a will to go and find one.

At least according to Carter in The Echo. Reading that, I have to say there is alot in there that resonates with me. As soon as Poortvliet walked (or was advised to jump), then for me, the "Revolutionary Coaching Set Up" was a busted flush, and with Wotte backtracking faster than a thing that backtracks fast, it's clear to see that this mad vision has been found wanting. http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/news/4119454.Is_there_time_left_to_save_Saints_after_Lowe_s_grand_vision_fails_/ IMHO, it's probably only about the second article this season that's managed to distinguish itself from what might have appeared on the Official Site.

You're probably calling out to a few thousand there and it's going to be hard to reach them all, let alone persuade them all to rally round the Club. A much easier way of achieving what you seek would be if one person, namely Lowe (and maybe two with Wilde), stepped down for the greater good (they're both dispensable). That's just one person who needs to change their mind and only one decision that needs to me made. A much simpler and achievable solution. HTH

The principle of finding a new CEO is probably no different to finding a new manager. When the majority on here were saying replace Poortvliet, I certainly don't remember there being a flood of managers throwing their hats in the ring. Instead, the Board decided that Poortvliet's time was up and at the same time decided on a replacement. The same is true of a CEO. You won't get CEO's throwing their hats into the ring until there is a vacancy, or until the Board go on the search for one. It's probably not the job it once was, it carries difficulties (a fractured supporter base, a fractured shareholder base, difficult trading position and a poor league position), but for some it would still be a very attractive proposition, not least because the potential is there and arguably you're in a no lose situation. Sorry, but your last line does not reflect the situation out in the real world, as the problem remains that nobody amongst the ruling cabal seems to want to replace the CEO.

LMFAO for you're 1/3.. As if there really is only ONE surgeon available to save us.:rolleyes: I'd be up for sacking the Trustees of the Hospital if they thought there was only one surgeon in the whole country available to use. HTH from the Itchen/Chapel corner boyz

You know we're in trouble when the best reason for keeping Lowe is because people think there are no alternatives out there in an big, wide world. I would probably accept someone with £100m to waltz in, but in the absence of that option, I would just settle for a competent CEO, and independent and non divisive Chairman. How provincial are we to think that there are no alternatives to Lowe as CEO. Fck me, what's going to happen when he eventually retires??? I presume we cease to exist:rolleyes: I actually prefer it when people list a number of positive reasons why Lowe should remain in situ. I may not agree with all of them, but they're a hell of alot more reasonable than, "there's no one out there willing to do it!!!":rolleyes::rolleyes:

I agree that Crouch had no idea back then when Pearson was first taken on, which makes his idea of having a review period come the end of the season eminently sensible. It appeared to be an arrangement that suited both sides, and an arrangment that both Crouch and Pearson would have been happy to carry on with, had Lowe & co. not returned. But come the end of the season, there was a point where we did have an idea of how good/bad Pearson was. And it was at that point that Lowe decided to call time on his tenure.

I think you're being a bit of a drama queen here, as I don't think anyone is really suggesting Pearson is the best thing since sliced bread. I think what psses alot of people off is when they compare Pearson to the fcking disaster that followed him. Using Poortvliet as a comparison, then all of a sudden Pearson starts to look outstanding;)!!!!!!!! IMHO, that's most supporter's gripe, not that Pearson was a fantastic manager, not that his period here was brilliant, but with him we had something that looked promising, had the supporter's support and was starting to find his feet. Which brings us on neatly to: You must be about the only one on here advocating we kept Poortvliet on. He didn't need his steel resolved, he needed a one way ticket back to Arnemuiden!!!!!!!!! Even though I don't believe it one bit (as I think Wilde and Lowe had already called time on Poortvliet), then if Crouch did unsettle Poortvleit and played a part in him walking, then fair play to Crouch. I think we should have been doing everything possible to run Poortvliet out of town.

I may agree with his view that having Lowe in charge is not taking us forward, but that's a huge leap from that position to "supporting" Crouch.

But couldn't that mean that someone who was in the bottom 3 in February got out of it by April???? I think Charlton and Watford in 4 days will be the cruch time. My gut feel is we will always be in with a chance of staying up and everything will de decided on that last day.

I meant out on a limb in that, just like a financial adivsor, we were not going to tell people what to do one way or the other (and then bear the responsibility). Ultimately it was up to the individual members (just as it was for other individual shareholders with their own shares) to decide how the Trust's 20,000 shares would be voted. As you say, we were more of a voice echoing what the membership were saying and the Trust itself only came out one way or the other after polling it's members.

I personally backed Wilde back in the summer of 2006. I was also a member of the Trust Board back than and as Rob said we met with Wilde a couple of times and put a number of member's questions to him (we also tried to set up meetings with all the other prominent parties eg Lowe, Cowen, Crouch etc). Just as a financial advisor would say, there was no way we were going to go out on a limb and verify and be accountable for all his assets, promises, cash etc. and the Trust Board (some of whom were Lowe supporters) did not make the decision one way or the other to support Wilde, Crouch or Lowe. That was left up to a membership vote at an AGM.

Why does it have no credibility? Everything to do with this area is subjective and impossible to substantiate either way, but I think it is a fair position to take, in that, like many others, he believes Pearson would have been more successful than Poortvliet. But (a) we had a period to judge and gauge Pearson, and (b) we are now discussing the Poortvliet position from the benefit of hindsight. Given where we are, I see no problem in using it as an example of the poor decision making that has go us into that mess, particularly if we don't want to repeat those mistakes. Just as I'm sure Lowe would claim Strachan was a success, then why shouldn't Crouch claim the same with Pearson.? After all, if Poortvliet had come good, then I'm sure Lowe would have been crowing about it. It's all about taking the rough with the smooth. As my quote from last week, above, shows, there is consistency and balance. I'm just really struggling to understand the original premise of this thread and what you were trying to achieve?????