um pahars

I can only presume you really did stop attending games this season as you promised, because IMHO the support, given the numbers, has been fairly remarkable. There has been minimal barracking of the players, some wholesome support and until very recently, no protests against the board, as people's support has been channeled behind the players. You were making the same false allegations about our last relegation season, so I can only presume you're on a wind up. Absolute rubbish, risible and I thought wse had moved on from posting such garbage. A different Chairman could have implemented a number of different strateigies. A different manager could have implemented a number of different strategies. And these strategies could have been implemented within the financial constraints that we have to operate under. Whether they would have been worse, similar or better is up for conjecture, but to suggest our hands are tied, the dice rolled and there was nothing else that could have been done is something out of La La land.:rolleyes::rolleyes: We might as well just have carried on with Poortvliet if the manager makes no difference:D:D

Fcking hell nickh!!!!!!! I think the problem with Jan was not leaving him in charge for too long, but more the fact that he was employed in the first place. The last three games may be what you have a problem with, the rest of us call it the first 28 games which left us in an appalling state on and off the pitch. With that appointment and it's accompanying strategy Lowe has once again shown that he has been found wanting with regards the big decisions, even in the short term!!!!!!!!!!

There were still 5,000 more watching last season compared to this season. As soon as we dropped from the Premiership we lost 5,000+ of the fans who only come in the really good times (and very often to see who we were playing as much as watching Saints). This season, IMHO, we have lost the middle ground of supporters. Supporters who come if what is being dished up is honest, worthy of the price and is moderately successful (particularly at home). We're now down to our hard core and I worry that if things continue the way they are, then we may start losing a portion of these loyal, die hard supporters. Each of the above group of supporters are as worthy as each other and it's no good having a pop at them for not turning up, questioning their behaviour, motivation and habits are distinctly missing the point. They are who they are. Instead the question is simply why are they not turning up and what can be done to redress this?

On average, 5,000 more than we're getting this season were. And I have no doubt that with a degree of success and a spirit of unity, then even in this division I think this Club could easily pull in circa 25,000 crowds. Indeed, I'm sure that attendances would have been poor under any manager who had replicated Poortvliet's appalling record. BUT, although it is purely hypothetical, I really struggle to think of any other manager (maybe even Wigley:rolleyes:) who would have presided over such a disastrous start to a season. Pearson was no uber manager, but he was also not the pile of cacck that Poortvliet was. Additionally, I do wonder if a sense of unity would have been worthy of a couple of thousand on the gate, something Lowe and Poortvliet were never able to pull off.

I think a small part of the problem with Lowe is deeper, longer and more heartfelt. His mistakes far outweigh those made by Crouch and Wilde, both in number and in magnitude. Throw in a real lack of empathy with fans, some very divisive comments and an air of arrogance and I think it is alot harder for some to accept him back. But of course the main reason people are against Lowe's continuing presence is the simple fact that his decision making has once again been shown to be appalling. I cannot sit back and just "watch" Saints, when what I see is a poor imitation, in so many ways, of the Club I started out supporting (which was in Div 2, so I'm no football snob). Lowe is at the root of all the current problems, so I find it impossible just to turn up and ignore all the other stuff that is going on, because ultimately all that other stuff impacts on what happens on the pitch on a Saturday afternoon.

Firslty, it has to be down to the Manager/Head Coach. And then probably just as important in our case (due to the dominating influence and strategy employed at our Club), it is to do with those making the day to day decisions and setting the environment in which that Manager/Head Coach has to work. IMHO that is the CEO. With us, those two are entwined in establishing and overseeing the current strategy that is failing us big time, and resulting directly in lost points on the pitch and lost pounds off it. I personally fail to see how just changing one of these will work. Ultimately success on the pitch will be the biggest driver of this CLub, and the current set up and have not achieved that (and with regards the CEO that problem goes back even further). However, I also think it is bigger than merely success on the pitch, and I think the current CEO will never be able to reunite and/or galvanise the Club, even in good times. He is too implicated in and tarnished by our recent history and is a divisive figure.

I would agree that it is a combination of a leadership team that alienates some in the fanbase, combined with disastrous perfromances which have come as a direct result of that same leadership team's decisions and strategy. People come on here and pontificate about the stayaways. Then others moan that protesting or boycotts might push us into administration (something I'm sure Lowe won't be shy in spinning). But this regime has overseen a huge drop in attendances and a massive drop in revenue and it is their actions that are the root cause of the problem. Thefalling attendances are merely symptons of a much bigger and wider problem. If you want to solve this problem you have to address the root cause of it, and stop attacking the symptons and obviously consequences that are a direct result of it. .

This has been discussed at length as Window Cleaner has rightly pointed out, and the ownership/deal had been posted and debated on here under a few threads. It may have been Duncan Holley, but it was certainly made clear it was not a "gift". It certainly was never portrayed as a "free" gift by anyone connected to the Corbett's, but then again a shrewd eye followed by an interest free loan is something not to be sniffed at (and something I'm, sure we could do with at the moment!!!). Additionally, John Corbett's regular contributions to funding the Club is noted regularly in the Hagiology books, including paying the Club's wages out of his own pocket on a number of occasions. Maybe we could all do with reading what some put up here, because although at times this is a noddy internet message board with alot of ****** posted (alot of it by myself), there is also a very large amount of well informed information.

In the same way that we go out and recruit a manager, why don't we go out and recruit a suitably qualified CEO??? If the major shareholders had the vision and will then it would be eminently possible to go and recruit someone else. I'm certainly not advocating we just sit around and wait for a sugar daddy, I'm suggesting we go and recruit a competent CEO and maybe a unifying Chairman.

The Corbett's have no say with regard this piece of land, it is solely an asset of the PLC (although I reckon one of our creditors would have a charge on it!!!!). As far as I was aware John Corbett paid up front for the land, and then effectively sold it to the Club accepting his money (interest free) over a number of years as we could not have afforded to but it up front. I always thought it was originally bought to be either a training ground at some point in the future or even as a potential venue for a new ground.

It may have escaped your notice, but football matches are played in open "public" spaces with the public paying to be entertained. Support, songs, whingeing, moaning etc etc etc are all a part and parcel of football. And as others have said all they could generally hear was exactly what you have described. Now if the odd nutter takes it to excess then please let's not take it out on others who have done no more than what millions of fans have done over the years.

If the choice was between the fans being pssed off with him for shutting the corners and stopping the buses, or being pssed off with him for overseeing the Club go into administration, then I think the choice would be rather obvious. I think Crouch is brash, gung ho and at times too emotional, but I also don't think he's (a) stupid or (b) be prepared to preside over the Club going into administration.

I think it would, as we would then know the context, what was said, how many were saying it etc etc etc. I didn't experience anything other than the normal moans and groans, some laughter, some exasperated expletives and frustration. I would certainly like to know what exactly was said, as otherwise I have to say that these players need to toughen up and accept that fans having a general moan after 1 win in how many is par for the course.

And as I posted above, I have to say with quotes like this, then it is fair to question your lack of objectivity and motivation. You must also have a very poor memory as Lowe and Wilde's comeback was played out in a number of media outlets, leaks, tittle tattle and spin. Those who were part of the SOS group were privy to a potential comeback way before anything was official (maybe as early as December/January). It also made it's way into a number of media outlets before anything was officially announced. And then it was splashed all over the media until it was concluded. It had not gone unnoticed at St Mary's either and I remember at Central Hall in early March that Pearson and others were well aware that Wilde and Lowe were vehemently against his appointment, and that they were also contemplating a comeback. I'm sure Pearson, and maybe the other coaches and even some players, felt really comfortable knowing that he/they would have potential new bosses in the summer!!!!! Now of course there may be the same issues this time around with regards upsetting the apple cart, but let's please not pretend that last summer was any different in general context and substance. There was no clear majority when they first approached the Club in mid March. There was also no clear idea of their intentions, unless Crouch & Co were lying to the Stock Exchange (which I doubt) when they issued their statement in mid March saying that "despite asking Lowe for a detailed proposal setting out his intentions they had not received one". And even when Lowe formally convened the EGM over a month later, he still did not have the support of the majority of shareholders. The rumours of changeover started in late February (maybe even as early as January - maybe some on the SOS team could pin down a date) and then ended come May, so hardly a quick, clean changeover. I don't have problems people holding and espousing different opinions, but I do have a problem with people attempting to rewrite history and applying double standards in their posts, particularly when they themselves are so vociferous in their questioning of people's lack of objectivity and motivation.

That will be the same bunch of Swansea fans who must have been drama queens and revolutionaries back in 2002 when they took to the streets (and the pitch) to protest against Tony Petty. You're in la la land if you think this only happens down here. A few points on this one: 1. Lowe and Wilde must have thought there was some mileage in changing the manager, even with so few games coming up, so why not the management team up in the offices? (BTW I did chuckle at your attempt to blame Crouch for Poortvliet walking/being sacked, which although obviously not the case, then had it been, I think Crouch should be commended for ridding us of such a failure) 2. I don't remember you being too critical of Lowe and Wilde's timing last season when their "takeover" overshadowed our relegation battle, particularly when it was common knowledge that Lowe had a replacement for Pearson already lined up. 3. Whilst Pearson was no uber manager, he did manage to arrest our decline in only 13 games, so I see no reason why change, even this late in the day is not an option (with regards both the manager and the CEO). 4. Were those 6 million reasons why we shouldn't change relevant last summer? 5. The transfer window may be shut, but the loan window is still there. A change in manager and CEO could bring about a new strategy which could utilise this window. After all, Pearson and Hoos used it judiciously last season. 6. And when you try to pin the blame for Poortvliet being sacked/walking on Crouch just because he was at SMS on the Friday it happened, then I think it is also fair to question your lack of objectivity and motivation. I also note the lack of objectivity last summer when you were never repeated some of the scare stories you were running two summers previously e.g. you never trotted out lines such as "change of control might mean the loan is called in", a scare tactic you were happy to band about previously. You're of course entitled to your opinion, but please don't pretend that you're a voice of balance, impartiality and reasonableness. It's not a campaign of hatred, merely a campaign to try and rid us of some very poor guardians and decision makers at our Club. The main reason we will go into administration is not due to the fans, but instead due to the actions of a number of those who have been in charge of this Club in recent years. You would be better off looking at the decisions taking by people that have resulted in millions lost, failing atttendances and relegation, with another relegation on the horizon which will will do more to bring on administration, as opposed to blaming a fan protest. Taking this season, the appointment of Jan Poortvliet and how it has produced falling revenue and failing performances is the main reason why we are being drawn towards relegation and probable administration. Rather than bemoan Poortvliet's departure (which is remarkable in itself), you would be better off trying to understand why such a crass decision was taken in the first place. As for the last line, well I can only hope you've enjoyed this division more than I have! Three players!!!! Players who were obviously not up to much if they couldn't single handedly save them from the drop, but all of a sudden now must be quality if they single handedly take Leicester to the top of their division. Of course they're handy players, but I think many are playing down Pearson's achievement at Leicester, not least because there is no guarantee that relegated clubs will bounce straight back up (as we found out to our cost). But additionally, if you look at his team, then the vast majority are youngsters and/or loanees (who are also young). He has rebuilt that Leicester team and is doing his part in getting them promoted. He was no uber manager, and there would be no guarantees had he stayed here, but I also very much doubt he would have been as such a disaster as Poortvliet was!

The facts of the matter are quite simple. Lowe appointed these managers/head coaches because he believed they would perform for him. Nothing special about that, nothing sinister about that and no ulterior motive. Quite simply Lowe took a decision that he thought would be good for the CLub, but his decision making ability was found wanting.

So going by your logic I presume we should have stayed with Poortvliet, Wigley and Gray??? There is nothing wrong with sacking a manager who is out of his depth and not performing, instead you have to look as why & how he was appointed. No sensible person would advocate sticking with a failing manager just because it would add to xx managers in xx years. The problem with all those mentioned above is not the sacking of them, but instead the appointment of them.

Yeah, you asked me at about half 11 last night, just as I was going to bed and I obviously missed your post. You may also notice that I don't post during the day, so sorry that it's taken me that long to get back to you FFS (and feel free to wind in the cheap digs just cos I'm nto at your beck and call). As someone else has already pointed out, I am no longer involved on the Trust Board (but remain a grass roots member). As for some ideas about removing Lowe and moving forward, then I have never been shy in putting forward a number of ideas of how it could be achieved, what would come next, or at least an idea of what we could be doing. Removing Lowe could take a number of guises and to be honest most of them have been mentioned on here ad nauseum, e.g. protests, boycotts, "petitioning" shareholders and other stakeholders right up to more militant and direct action etc etc etc. There are a number of good ideas already being mooted and it looks as though there are people who are willing to try and do something to remove such a divisive and failing individual, both as CEO and as PLC Chairman. As for what can take his place, well my original suggestion around the time of the Runnymede meeting was to have all three major shareholding blocks represented on the board, but to have an independent salaried CEO alonmg with a non aligned Non Executive Chairman. (As Lowe is such a divisive (and failed) figure I suggested that maybe Cowen and/or Richards would represent that cabal, Wilde would also get a seat along with Crouch as Non Execs). I think a similar set up would still need to apply, with a proviso that there may have to be some short termism in some of the appointments until ling term appointees can be found. In the first instance the major shareholders should be looking for a suitably qualified and able CEO to take over the reins ASAP. At the same time they need to looking for a suitable Chairman (or maybe one of those in the shadows would step forward if they knew there was an appetite for change). Then the board needs to reflect the major shareholding groups (top include Crouch, but replacxe Lowe with say Richards). I'm afraid to say that along with these two appointments I would be thinking very hard about replacing Wotte, who IMHO is too tied up with the "Revolutionary Coaching Set Up". As an interim, I wouldn't be averse to Cowen taking the reins on a day to day basis, perhaps even assisted by Crouch or someone else. As for PLC Chairman then once again as a stopgap how about Salz, Green, Richards, Wiseman or even Cowen again. There could be any number of different permutations based on some of the above ideas and there should be no sacred cows when it comes to this Club's future. It won't be easy, it would rely on some hatchets being buried (but not buried in each others backs!!!!) and there may be major compromises, but IMHO maintaining the status quo is not the way forward. None of the above would be a guarantee of success, but neither is any of the above impossible if there is a will amongst the shareholders and key players. (see I'm not just quick to put the boot in)

It's all about luck you know:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

It only needs Wilde to withdraw his support for Lowe as CEO and his position then becomes untenable IMHO (the starting point for voting would be 37% v 26% against Lowe). Any other major shareholder in addition to that (Richards, Askham, Withers etc) would be a bonus and woudl definitely seal his fate. We should be looking to appoint a CEO and Chairman who can bring some uinity and more importantly, some decent decision making to this Club ASAP. And with that, I wouldn't rule out a new manager as well to see us through the last 1/3rd of the season.

So if you think it is OK to remove the manager half way through the season, what is so different removing the CEO?

We were not unlucky tonight, we just played really poorly and arguably deserved to lose. The fight and passion had gone, there wasn't much endeavour, skill or creativity. It was back to square one for me I'm afraid. Davis - 5 - Lost a bit of confidence and seemed to pull his hand away for their winner when he could have saved it. James - 2 - Time to be honest and say he is no full back Size - 5 - Mixed it up a bit, but got done big time for the winner Perry - 6 - Must wonder what is going on around him Surman - 5 - He's no full back either, but he did score McGlaggon - 2 - Not up to it Wotton - 5 - Tried hard, but never replicated his effort against Swansea Lallana - 4 - The game passed him by too much Gillett - 4 - Another one not cut out for it Mcgoldrick - 2 - I think I'm a tad biased but he is rubbish. Shirked challenges and scuffed every chance he had. Saga - 7 - Started really brightly and was head and shoulders above the rest, but then tailed off as the team left him isolated Subs: Euell - 7 - Our best player when he came on (he really should be starting) BWP - 5 - Never capitalised on the space he was given Schinderlin - 1 - Looked disinterested and off the pace Wotte has been distancing himself from the previous 28 game regime (which is pretty sly IMHO), but sadly match 31 tonight fitted in well alongside those other 28 matches.

Were you saying the same about Poortvliet?

So we're in agreement then that the current reporting is **** poor and will have to agree to disagree over the quality and impartiality of their past reporting.