um pahars

He holds less than 6% as a shareholder, and in this context we are talking about him as a paid executive (Your assertion that he is not a paid executive is incorrect). No offense, but you seem to be unable to understand the set up here. I don't think Wilde has anything to worry about regarding changing his mind again, as his u-turn last Spring made him look very foolish. It would only take Wilde to change his mind to make Lowe's position untenable Alternatively if Askham, Richards and one other withdrew their support then it would have the same effect. The shareholders will not be forking out anything, the Club foots the bill. And IMHO, just as it would be a false economy to stick with a failing manager (who IMHO didn't resign without a pay off), it would also be a false economy to stick with a failing and divisive CEO. The same logic that applies to replacing a failing manager should apply to a failing CEO. There is no difference in principle whatsoever.

I wasn't asking about what the majority of shareholders thought, I was asking you whether you would apply the logic of "we have to make the best of what we've got", and "I still think the alternative could be worse" to the managers role. Because if the answer is no, then there is absolutely no reason why it cannot be applied to a salaried CEO. And you succinctly miss the point here as my suggestion was replacing the CEO in much the same way you would replace a manager. I'm not advocating sacking the board, merely replacing an underperforming and divisive CEO. It's eminently possible to sack a CEO and to think otherwise shows a rather poor understanding of the situation. Of course it would mean one/some of his current supporters would have to vote against him, but just as we have seen with the managers position, people can change and amend their position based on people's performance in the job. Therefore, I have no doubt that protests (of various types) may focus the minds of certain shareholders who do have the power to start the process of sourcing a CEO who could do better than the current encumbent.

Would you apply your view of: a) we have to make the best of what we've got, and b) I still think the alternative could be worse to the manager's role? If not, then why apply it to the CEO? I don't think we are likely to see a White Knight riding over the hill, but that doesn't mean we should just accept a failing and divisive CEO any more than we would put up with a failing and divisive manager.

I'll be drinking pints of vodka if we're down by then!!!!!!!

Your "He'll play 15 games this season" is going to cost you!!! Was it £50 we agreed on?

And one of our biggest problems is that many thousands have done just that under this failing regime. We are now down to the hardcore of supporters who due to their loyalty, love and affinity for their Club would find it very difficult to turn their back on what they believe to be "their" Club. There may come a time when even these ardent supporters give up, but I think many of them will fight to try and ensure "their" Club survives, and is not driven to the wall by people who are failing them. You may be happy to sit and take whatever is dished up, and you are totally entitled to take that position. The other side of the coin is that many have just walked away, whilst many others are pushing for change. In a way, all three positions are valid, so please spare us the sanctimonious preaching.

And in the absence of that????? As if we can't achieve success on the pitch, are you just saying we're fcked???? Or would you not agree that there might be an opportunity to galavanise the supporters, the Club and maybe even the city if the right people went about it in the right way??? I haven't got anything in mind, but I do believe if it was approached in the right manner, that depsite being sht on the pitch, there might be an oppotunity for us all to pull together for the long term future of this Club. I just can't see Lowe being able to achieve this, with or without success on the pitch.

I have criticised the cashing in of shares by Lawrie and Wiseman in the past, legally fine, morally debateable. Crouch got no severance pay. Individual players, each case on their merits (some worthy of loyalty bonuses, others taking the pss). But what do you think about these people taking these large sums, then returning and maybe having to try and galvanise some financial support for the Club (I certainly wouldn't want Wiseman or Lawrie leading a drive eithert)? I know what I would say - You two put some of the money you have taken from the Club and then we'll start chipping in.

In which case you clearly know nothing relating to the financing of football clubs, and particularly the case at Saints. We are not immune to this, and there have been a number of clubs who have also fallen foul of the fallout from relegation, but if you think we weren't in such a mess when Lowe left, then you're probably thinking things are hunky dorey now as well. (After all, we didn't know where the next penny was coming from!!!!".

I agree, but I very much doubt any of those will be overseeing any future drives to try and get fans to contribute to the Club's survival. I have no problems with their pay offs per se, but I do have a worry that in taking the money and then returning, Lowe and Cowen will have lost the ability to galavanise the Club and it's supporters in it's hour of need.

And as such I made that point absolutely clear. Lowe and Cowen were contractually entitled to that money and they did nothing wrong in taken that money for loss of office, as it was clearly their contractual entititlement. In the business world this happens all the time and people rarley blink an eye. However, this is a football club, and although people try and liken it to a "normal" everyday business, in many ways it is anything but "normal". Moast "normal" businesses don't rely on the loyalty in the way that football clubs do, most "normal" businesses don't end up looking to their supporters to help bail them out of trouble. By taking that money, I think Lowe and Cowen have put themselves in a very difficult position when they then start asking supporters to help out the Club financially by means of support, as supporters will quite rightly remember that they have taken some serious money out of the Club at a time when the Club was under immense financial pressure. By taking this money, however contractually and legally entitled to it they were, they have lost some of their ability to galvanise and unite this Club (that's if they have any left anyway).

They were indeed entitled to their contractual pay offs and were duly paid up (as were Hone & Hoos etc) when they departed. Whether Directors who "fail" should receive these payments is a much wider argument, not just confined to SLH. But, IMHO, by taking these pay offs, both Lowe and Cowne surrendered any moral highground they may have had with regards trying to unite the CLub and they have also made it more difficult for them to be able to play the "Be Loyal" card to the supporters. After all, if things start to get really tough, who will respond to one of their calls to support the Club financially, when they have taken out a decnet six figure sum each. It would be akin to wheeling out Jason Euell in an attempt to get fans to support the Club financially! Nothing wrong contractually etc, but hardly likely to engender a spirit of unity and togetherness either. Behave yourself. In that first season down, we lost £9m cash out the door on normal operations and that was even after receiving a £7m one off parachute payment. To say we were not in a financial mess shows a very serious lack of appreciation of the situatin we found ourselves in post relegation. They left with a Club that had been holed below the waterline and one that needed to bounce straight back up if it was to avoid the financial meltdown endured by many other clubs.

3/3 there goes nineteencanteen/sundance/the bear/flashman & his other 12 or so aliases.:smt022:smt022:smt022 Problem for you is that in your rude little PM to various posters on here, you actually mentioned the phrase "nineteen canteen", something never mentioned on here previously. Rumbled;) (from the man in the Itchen South/Chapel corner)

And a pretty poor use of your 2/3 post:smt022:smt022:smt022 Oh the irony. I presume you must sit near me in the Itchen South/Chapel corner.

We are well up that creek, but our only saving grace is that there are probably 4 other teams up there with us. I wonder which two will find their paddle????

As each week goes by and we still need 5 points to get out of the drop zone, then so it starts to become an impossible proposition. We now have to outperform two teams by something like 5 points over the next 15 games. Unless we reduce that deficit PDQ, then we will be left up sht creek.

REading that, I have to say that was not the best use of 1/3rd of your daily post quota:rolleyes::rolleyes::smt022:smt088:smt054

I think you'll find there have been a number of posts (and threads) on here, where they have been criticised, particularly for their behaviour around the SISU approach time and their failure to implement Plan B at around the same time. But I think that criticism has to be put in context, looked at rationally and then also balanced fairly against the mistakes of others, (in fact, their first season could be called a relative success as costs were reduced, net debt reduced to it's lowest level for a few years and on the pitch we got to the play offs). After doing that, I find it difficult to suggest that Hone and co should take most of the blame as you are suggesting. IMHO, whilst they are worthy of being blamed for some poor decision making, I think others are more culpable for the position we find ourselves in. Relegation the first time around turned this Club upside down and relegation this time around will be the killer blow. Those acts will be the ones that killed this Club and Hone and co are/were not around for both. Their actions at the end of their tenure were poor by anyones standards, but putting it in perspective, overspending by a few million (or a blip as David Jones called it at the AGM) is not what has brought this Club to it's knees. It certainly never helped, but a few million overspend pales into comparison when judged against the millions lost from the top line and the calamitous decisions made this season which may well be the final straw.

Effectively two wins and we have to overhaul two teams. Next week : Bristol City v Saints Watford v Swansea (midweek) Sheff Utd v Barnsley Preston v Norwich Out of that, being honest maybe Watford could get something. This will go to the wire!!!!!!!!!!!

Looking at the 8 game current form table, then Barnsley and Watford are only slightly ahead of us. Derby were also just above us, but todays result pulls them away. Interestingly Plymouth, who got spanked by Derby are below us, but perhaps their 7/8 points advantage is too great to overhaul. Could be perhaps any 2 from Saints, Watford, Barnsley and Norwich (But Donny, Derby & Forest not out of the woods). Problem for us though, is that we need to get on a run!!!!!!

Looking at the table as it stands now, it's a mixed afternoon, BUT the headline news is that we are now 4 points from safety, effectively 5 due to our goal difference. On top of that the club 4/5 points ahead of us (Barnsley) have a game in hand. The only bright side is Norwich losing. We have a game in hand but are 4 (effectively 5 points behind them).

Doncaster must be on a hell of a run. Norwich could be struggling with this score and of course our game against Watford will be massive. Barsnley are another team we want to fall back down.

Absolutely!!!!! The major shareholders should be doing some very deep soul searching and they should be looking to get us out of this hole. Continuing with the status quo is proving a shambolic strategy. If protests start to focus their minds, then I'm all up for that. They need to be looking to find the right people to lead this Club out of the hole we currently find ourselves in. Lowe has little or no support for remaining in situ, and those with the power need to be doing something, as opposed to sitting idly by and watching a busted flush lead us to our second relegation in a few years. There's a whole world out there and yet for some blinkered reason Wilde and Lowe's cabal still pretend that he is the answer to our woes, unbelievable.

And I would counter that the decisions taken by Lowe and others a few seasons ago cost this Club millions in loss of revenue. In the intervening period other decisions also cost the Club £££££'s. And then of course this season, I would also counter that decisions taken by Lowe this season have cost us millions as well (each 1,000 bums on seat = £500k over a season). Forget taking it to individual fans and saying how their personal choice is impacting on the Club, it glosses over the bigger picture and fails to highlight the real culprits of our dire situation. It's akin to emotional blackmail, with the line being trotted out being, "Without your money this Club will suffer", and the correct response should be, "With our money this Club has still suffered due to your incompetence". A number of individuals (with Lowe IMHO being the biggest culprit) have cost this Club more in terms of money than any fan ever has or will.