um pahars

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.

I only think Lallana and Surman would have gone if mega wonga was offered, as I imagine their wages are not much of a concern. I can understand the logic of letting them go if we got a huge fee in the january window, but there isn't much sense in letting them go on loan just to save a couple of mid ranking wages. I would have thought the players we will be looking to offload in the loan window will be the high earners - Skacel, Euell, dare I say Saga etc.

Did you go to the match??? As I have to say I thought the atmosphere and support (given the numbers) was pretty good. I'm sure the battling performance by the players got the fans going, but I also think some of the passion from the march also transferred itself on to the terraces.

An up and at 'em 2-1 win. Down to 10 men when Wotton walks int he 84th minute.

You're allowed to take flags in that are under 6ft x 4ft without a fire certificate (had that direct from the Safety Officer). As for the Echo, I think it is safe to say that The Daily Echo have been in cahoots with the Club since last summer. At times you haven't been able to get a fag paper between them!!!! A shame realy as the Echo were always fairly even handed in their reporting, but this season they've been as cringeable as the OS at times. To some degree I can accept the propaganda spewed out by the OS, but the local paper should have a degree of independence and credibility about it. IMHO Simon Carter is out of the loop here, as he's the only one to have written anything remotely critical, and the real issue rests withhis boss Ian Murray. Can anyone point out when that number of people last marched through the City Centre???? They normally give a double page spread to 50 people fighting against a mobile phone mast, but probably the city's largest march in years gets scant coverage (and minimal publicity beforehand as well).

Meant to add it to the other Pulis thread that started today, but as usual me and techy things don't get along. As for the second point, I have been working hard from home today.

You forgot Pearce I thought I got to 12 before this window, and then we have added Saeijs, Molyneux and Liptak, so who is the missing player???? I would have to agree that such an influx of players may have been behind some of our problems on the pitch (and it certainly couldn't have helped our financial position). Whilst we certainly had to replace some players who had left, I do think a much more targeted and refined approach may have served us better.

I think a combination of the two, i.e. a large dash of loyalty mixed in with a slosh of being comfortable. Nothing wrong with that at all, and I personally have seen a number of close friends quality of life seriously diminish as they chase the big bucks and the status in their careers.

With 16 matches of the season left, I think it's fair to say I could be winning this wager!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's a bit harsh!!! If Surman opts to stay with a club he has a big affinity with and wants to play a part in restoring it to it's former glory, then I have to say I think that's a very admirable stance. From a monetary perspective, even given an average Championship salary, he'd probably be earn close to £3m over a 10 year period, and whilst he could obviously earn more in the Premiership, he isn't going to be destitute. You might question his ambition, but the counter argument would be that loyalty and devotion are much more admirable qualities.

But don't you think there is an element of truth in that statement?? Firstly, as a team, we're second bottom after 30 games, so we're obviously not that good (although I accept having a Ducth Dinlo in charge hampered us somewhat). Secondly, as individuals, the saleable assets haven't really stood out and justified their intial hype (and price tag we probably put on them). Thirdly, I really would have expected us to sell at least a couple of players as although I'm sure the losses have been reduced, I can't believe we are not reliant on transfer income to keep us alfoat. The very fact we didn't would seem to indicate that people never came in with sizeable offers as they didn't rate any of our players. I'm sure there are a number of other complicating and even conflicting reasons, but I don't think it's unfair to say that few of our current squad interest other teams!

I think there well may be a case of that with regards Surman. Don't know enough about Lallana to judge one way or the other, but going back to Surman I understand he is committed to Saints.

I think there is some mileage in this point as well. As Lordswood has quite rightly pointed out, with the exception of Davies, I don't think any player has really performed that well this season and quite frankly, I don't really think we have that many saleable assets. Surman has gone off the boil and you would be buying him on the premise he can recapture some of his form from a while back. Lallana would definitely be bought only as a punt, because althoguh he undoubtedly has an abundance of talent, it hasn't manifested itself into a series of quality performances. After that, I struggle to see who else other clubs would be interested in.

I presume you mean hurt. HTH