um pahars

A failing thing ran by a few chavs????? It was hardly a failure and your description of those who arranged the march is rather pathetic IMHO.

What part of any other cause didn't you understand??? I know it grates with you that so many turned up and how you would have loved to be on here pontificating that only 200 turned up, but sadly you and a few others have been made to eat your words. The turnout today was the start, and way, way, way ahead of the expectations of many. What happens next depends on the pride and passion of the supporters, not those who snipe behind their keyboards.

As someone else mentioned, I reckon you would have to go back years to find a protest march in this fine City that pulled in the numbers that were there today. As Lawrie once said we hide and conceal our passion, but to get 1,500 out on a march an hour and a half+ before kick off is a very big coup. It may not sit well with your beliefs, but I very much doubt we will see another demo of this size for any other cause for quite a while.

A bit of a strange game for me, with us being outplayed for large periods of the game, but for once having some steel to get stuck in and mix it. At times looked as though they were the pretty team and we were the ugly brawlers, their only difference is that they could finish. Despite Size and Perry doing their best I always felt we looked suspect at the back. The midfield was combative, but didn't really control the game. Up front McGoldrick did not look a threat, whereas Saga looked a potent finisher. A good atmosphere and I think the unity and support shown at the march transferred to the stands. Not sure we deserved a draw, but Saga's cool finishing ensured we shared the points. Davis - 6 - Always under pressure James - 5 - tries hard, but is no full back. Saeijs - 6 - Solid and held the line well Perry - 6 - Did OK in trying to marshall the defence Molyneux - 4 - Off the pace, caught out too often and rash in the challenge Lallana - 5 - Never really got into the game and didn't fit in with our kick up in the air approach Wotton - 6 - Kicked anything that moved and some stuff that didn't Gillett - 5 - Tried to be like Wotton, but never really came off for him Surman 6 - A bit of steel fromt he lad for a change DMG - 5 - All huff and puff for a change, but nothing doing Saga - 8 - Different gravy and what we have been missing all season Before the game would have settled for a point and with alot of other teams losing, it might not look that bad a point. My worry is we need to start winning at home if we are to stay up.

I can't imagine that Hannover Buildings and through Hoglands Park at 1:30 is a hotbed of Saints fans on their way to the match:rolleyes::rolleyes:

I must say I've never seen the whole of Old Northam Road full of Saints fans well over an hour before kick off.

LOL I don't want to let you in on this, but there were only about 150 people there, all towing 10 mannequins each!!! I got into all sorts of problems when two of mine fell over and their legs fell off.:rolleyes:

Saga may not be a world beater, but he is fcking miles ahead of what we have had this season. His finishing today was something we have not seen all season. Any fool can cut costs, but the visionary ones are those that believe in people and build things around them. What a false economy it has proven to be shipping out all our proven strikers. He/they may cost us money, but there is a payback associated with quality.

Which is exactly what I said prior to the match. Anyone who can remember the Branfoot protests will remember that those protests actually galvanised the supporters who really got behind the team. Supporting the team and protesting against the Board are not mutually exclusive.

We were at the back of the march and when we got going and entered Hannover Buildings, the main body was already at the roundabout by Debenhams. When we entered Hoglands Park, the front was already in Kingsway. And when we got into Kingsway, the main body were already in Old Northam Road. A very well mannered and well attended march with fans of all ages (and their pets) taking part. Speaking to one of the senior officers as we got into Kingsway, he commented on how well behaved and sensible the marchers were and estimated abot 1,500. There were more than sometimes go to watch Hampshire. Those that took part today should be proud of their efforts and conduct.

If you think it was a mistake not ridding us of him earlier, then surely that makes the original appointment a fcking terrible mistake. It sounds like you're having a pop at him for wasting 2 or 3 games, when the real damage was done in the preceeding 25 matches!!!!!!!!!!! Whether Pearson would have done better or worse is entirely hypothetical, but let's not divert attention away from the dire decision Lowe and co did make, a decision which I fear we may not recover in time this season. Installing Poortvliet was a terrible, terrible decision and no amount of trying to justify it, passing the blame or saying circumstances may have dictated it can alter that fact. Getting back to the start of this thread, for Wilde to suggest no one else could have done anything differently is disengenuous at best, because all you have to do is say: NO ONE ELSE WOULD HAVE APPOINTED POORTVLIET

Oh the irony;)

Believe they are doing, and actually doing the best for the club, are two entirely different propositions. I'm sure Lowe believed going for the "Revolutionary Coaching Set Up" was indeed the best for the Club, but inreality in turned out to be a spectacular disaster. One word for those thinking Lowe is actually doing the best for the Club: Jan Poortvliet

I have got just one word for you: "Revolutionary Coaching Set Up" And if you want I'll give you another: "Jan Poortvliet";) Timmers, are you out there and awake yet

I also don't think he is worth what we are paying him overall, but considering his £8 was fixed, then I'm not sure that I agree with the decision of not paying him just to save £1,000 a match. The £8k is a sunk cost and to hold back a player who was far better than those who replaced him for the sake of £1k would appear to me to be a rather false economy. I'm not saying he's a world beater, but that's small fry compared to what's at stake and the contribution he could have made to the team. (PS If you're right and the £1,000 was a stumbling block, then what does that say about Cowen's reply on here???).

I think he has been awfully treated by a number of managers, administrators and dare I sat it, a number of fans;). But when you're paying a mercenary £10k+ a week, I'm afraid sentamentality goes out the window. I think we've used his talents poorly, particularly this season when he should have played from the off (that's if you believe Cowen's line that there was nothing contractual in his non appearances under Poortvliet) and from my contacts I understand he has been somewhat of a model pro and always delivered on his side of the bargain (turning up for training, offering to play, not throwing hissy fits etc), but shipping players in and out is part and parcel of football and I'm not losing any sleep over this one episode.

The same people/person who didn't sack Poortvliet:rolleyes::rolleyes: (activated break clause, did not take up the option, resigned, mutual agreement, jumped ship - you call them want you want if it makes you happy;)).

Playing Devil's Advocate here for a bit: Maybe if we didn't demand a fee, then maybe Ipswich wouldn't have had a problem funding Skacel's wage demands? They could have utilised the transfer fee as some sort of loyalty bonus payable to Rudi as opposed to us. I understand the same thing happened with Webster (ironically with the same club). I think he will indeed take a pay cut on his next contract, but I cannot help but think he is well within his rights to expect his current one to be honoured by us. I'm not sure if people are really expecting him to take a pay cut with us for the remainder of this season, or accept a reduced contract if he moves, but he will be weighing up the financial benefits of seeing out this contract and finding a new club in the summer against leaving now. As long as he offers to play for us, and plays to his best ability then he has fulfilled his part of the bargain. Footballers are mercenaries and we should not be expecting any kind of reverse charity from them. Football clubs can also be heartless and ruthless entities, so we shouldn't be surprised if players sometimes play hardball.

There is one simple reply that blows this claim right out of the water. I very much doubt that anyone else would have sacked Pearson and appointed Jan Poortvliet as his replacement. That reckless, ill judged and ego driven act (on a par with the appointment of Wigley) is the single most defining factor in where we find ourselves today. Many decisions may have been restricted by the financial position we find ourselves in, but there can be no excusing such an appalling decision and therefore the subsequent decsions such as the transfers, tactics, "Revolutionary Coaching Set Up" etc that were all driven by such a misguided act.

Both of these runs (their good one and our shyte one) have to come to an end tomorrow, so I'm predicting 2-1. A quick 2-0 lead and a hairy end to the game.

There are people on here that have the ear of Crouch. There are people on here that have the ear of Wilde. There are people on here that have the ear of Cowen. There are people on here that have the ear of Lowe. There are people on here that have the ear of ..................... Everyone of them is entitled to hold, espouse and argue their views and beliefs, even if they are somewhat influenced by those who they speak with. If you cannot dee the difference between fans holding and espousing those views (no matter who they are influenced by) and professional PR spin doctors paid from the Club's purse, then quite frankly you're a (actually we already know what you are:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:).

Get in Bar Risa/Jongleurs and you can drink whilst you wait!!!!!! It's a pity Gattis has shut down!!!!!!!!

Now if someone could put Crouch's face in there, then we might be talking!!!!!! The thing I don't like about this is the way us Sotonians are being blamed, when it's those rowdy Channel Islanders giving us a bad name. Where's Bergerac when you need him????

It was nothing to do with holding a different opinion, it was related to being ignorant of how supporter involvement works at Clubs and trying to say they are "active" at all levels of the footballing side (along with stupid jibes realting to totally unrelated items such as fund raising for a statue etc), which is patently not the case in a number of successful supporter owned entities at home and abroad. There are a number of valid arguments relating to the shortcomings of supporter owned clubs such as ability to raise additional finance and some corporate governance issues, but to suggest fans would be "active" and involved at all levels displays an ignorance of the subject. And something I agreed with and agree with in our circumstances as we stand here today. It certainly works for some clubs abroad and it has workes for some clubs at home as well, but as I havce said throughout this thread, i don't think it is the solution to our current problems. For someone who tries to come across as sensible, rational and intelligent, I have to say this is one of the most ridiculous comments you have ever come up with. This is one example of where a Trust owned club has failed and whilst there are also others, football is also littered with PLC's and Ltd Co's that have also gone belly up. Additionally, there are a number of Trust owned/involved clubs home and abroad that are well managed. To summise and conclude that because Rushden and Diamonds went tts up, then all other Trust iniatives are just as poorly managed is ludicrous. Whatever ownership model is used, beit PLC, LTD, IPS will never be a substitute for good management (as we have found to our cost). It would just as disengenuous (and pathetic) to suggest because PLC's such as Leicester and Ipswich went tts up, then all other PLC's are run just as badly and likely to go to the wall as well. There are a number of valid counter arguments for every ownership model out there, but this has to be one of the weakest!!!!! And if a bunch of ameteur supporters did get to run a club (or any company for that matter) then I think it would probably pan out as bad as that first statue!! But once again you're being rather disengenuous and ignorant to suggest that is how a supporter owned model would or does work. Using a group of fund raisers organising a whip round to get a statue built as a stick to beat the Supporters Ownership Model is an extremely weak argument. To conclude, I certainly don't think a "truly" Supporters Owned Model is the answer to our current problems and I don't think it is something we will probably ever see. However, it is a model that has worked well (and poorly) at other clubs who have adopted it for a myriad of reasons (historical, financial, cultural). There are a number of shortcomings relating to the Supporters Ownership model which could be discussed on this thread, but instead people perpetuate myths and a poor line of argument which can only be put down to ignorance or a desire to be disengenuous.

Quite, and it wouldn't surprise me that at some point in the near future that we will be handing out the begging buckets to collect money from grass roots supporters in order to lend it to the Club to keep the wolves from the doors in the short term. Sadly, too many clubs have had to experience this and it's not something I would look forward to. That said, I do think that given the current set up, the facilities. infrastructure and potential (and this no disrespect to other clubs). I think relying on supporters would only be a short term solution as I would imagine we would still be an attractive proposition to some investor, despite being ravaged by administration (if we get that far of course), who would come in and buy us on the cheap,