um pahars

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,

Hopefully it will galvanise the supporters who still come along in much the same way in galvanised the diminishing band of Saints fams when the Branfoot protests were at their height. Back then although there was a constant stream of protests and initiatives going on in the background, I think it actually enhanced the support for the boys on the pitch. Protesting against those running the Club and supporting the team are not mutually exclusive.

But once again you seem to be missing the point entirely, or disenegenuously engaging in a different argument now that your initial argument that fans would be "active" & constantly involved in day to day issues as well as leading the club, has been shown to be a stereotypical myth. When you say "defending the concept is pretty futile", you indeed come across as ignorant, as the concept is working well at a number of Clubs. It is a bona fide and viable working alternative for a number of Clubs home and abroad (in fact, there are more supporter owned clubs in this country than there are listed clubs like ours). Now of course if you're saying that trying to get the concept working in it's truest sense at Saints is futile, then I would (and have above) agree with you. But your first premise was that the whole concept was a ridiculous concept that would involve supporters constantly being active in footballing decisions, fans leading and running the club, which is not how these organisations work. If your thrust is that it is a futile concept (and realistic saviour) for Saints, then as I say I agree with you, but it remains a totally realistic concept for many clubs, who do not operate anywhere near the manner in which you have tried to portray in this thread.

I wouldn't say the concept is futile because it is working, and working well at a number of Clubs (home and abroad). It's not a "miracle cure all" solution, and some fan owned clubs have also failed, but it is an alternative that some clubs at home have turned to and it is an model that some clubs abroad have grown with. However, I would say it is futile to expect that such a model can save Saints as we stand here today. And once again, I think you show your ignorance of how it works in reality by comparing it to a fans whip round and cck up when getting a bloke to do a sculpture. Jibes such as that add nothing to the debate and just perpetuates the same lame stereotypes along the lines that fans will text what substitutions should be made (although a Scandanavian club do run with that model!!!). WIth all due respect, if you want debate then trotting out ill informed jibes is hardly the best way of engendering it. And for those who are vehemently against supporter ownership of Saints, then I end with the fact that the majority of our Club is already owned by fans and they are much more active in influencing and making decisions than their true "supporter owned" counterparts (very often to the detriment of the Club). I find it odd why a 100% owned supporters club would be so much of an aneathema to some, but can only concede it is sadly out of ignorance and mistrust as opposed to any rational argument. PS Arguably, prior to the Reverse Takeover, we were probably a 100% supporter owned football club, albeit the ownership was not widespread.

If we're talking indebtedness, then I think the English game (as well as the Italians) would probably give them a run for their money. Ownership does not differentiate from poor leadership, no one ever said that (although there is a stronger case for arguing that supporter ownership might well ensure a degree of good governance and transparency, although I accept there are contra arguments). But your concept of supporters ownership of being active in all decisions, kneejerk and led by ameteurs does not reflect on how it works abroad and indeed at home. Jibes such as arguing over the font of a letterherad just belittle what could be a serious debate with mischief making and perpetuating myths about fans having their fingers in every pie. It doesn't work like that, but I'm also not naive enough to think we could introduce such a utopian dream that would ensure a more competive and level playing field. But if you had read my post then I was clear where I said that cultural (we have no desire for it), historical (e.g. we have no history of it) and competive (if sugar daddies are pumping in money elsewhere then it becomes difficult to compete) issues mean it would be a tough ask to retrospectively introduce supporter owned clubs in our league (although there are a number in the lower leagues, mainly out of necessity). BUT that's not the same as saying the concept is unworkable or flawed in it's concept (when it clearly works at home and abroad), not least when the current models of ownership are running a number of clubs (including ours) appallingly. PS Is it a solution for us?? For the three reasons I mentioned above (cultural, history and competitiveness) as well as a few others, then I would have to say no.

For me he's a young 20, in that when Rooney was about 16 he looked and played like a 28 yo bloke, Adam is much more slight and still needs to be nurtured and developed. Have no problem with him being rested, played only for specific matches where he can make a difference or being used as an impact sub. IMHO he's got the talent and we should be nurturing him. One of my main worries with this "Revolutionary Coaching Set Up" was the potential negative impact it would have on some of our youngsters as they dropped in at the deep end and exposed before some of them were ready.

But I would counter that by saying that those clubs that are truly supporter owned (and as you have mentioned them, we'll use Barcelona as an example) don't operate in the active mode that you suggest (in fact our Club is much more active, given the number of boardroom changes recently!!!!). They don't operate in a knee jerk manner, nor do they consult the supporter owners over small or even major decisions. Just because they are owned by supporters, does not mean they are led by supporters, nor that supporters are actively involved. At Barcelona for instance, every four years they choose a president and a board of directors who manage the club; supporters/members have the right to speak and to vote. Nor are they alone in Spain. Athletic Bilbao, Osasuna and Real Madrid are also democratic/mutual organisations, who hold quadrennial elections allowing their members to help determine the future direction of the club. The Germans do it a slightly different way, but they too have an executive in place to run their clubs and don't defer decisions to the membership. The obvious analogy would be with a company whereby just because you are a shareholder, it doesn't mean you get a say on every decision (you get your say at AGM's or EGM's, which is more regular than the Spanish football model). In our culture and competitive environment, there may be a number of reasons why supporter owned clubs may have their work cut out, but that doesn't mean that trotting out the myths that supporters would have a say in the footballing decisions and that we would be led by ameteur supporters should go by unchecked. Methinks people would do well to do some reading on how these clubs operate before they propagate these myths (no offence C B Fry, but some of the stuff you have mentioned above is patently untrue and would indeed be unworkable if it was the case, which it isn't). And that's even before we do get on to the argument that there are a number of individuals and clubs where the "traditional set up" is an absolute shambles, ours included.

They certainly don't rate Wotte on there and a couple bring up his poor stints at clubs including relegation (or degredation!!!!) at a few clubs.

Believe you me, Wilde may hold the biggest single amount of shares, but there is only one man running the show, and he's the one gone skiing. With the exception of his Technical Director role at Feyenoord (which ended in abject failure) and his stint at U 21 level, then I have to say Wotte's CV isn't actually that inspiring (and littered with a few relegations). And with all due respect to ourselves, if he was any good then he would have been someone other than running our ressies!!!!!! Lowe may have lost his touch in running a football club (or as some have said, he is struggling to cope without the millions from SKY), but he's not a total mentalist. There is no way he went into this season with Poortvliet thinking anything other than this would come off (even if it was with fingers crossed). If he thought Wotte was the better man last summer, then he would have appointed him there and then, and I certainly don't think he would have appointed Jan just so he could fail, so that he could then get his own way with Wotte!!!!!!!!!!

I would counter that the majority of the Club is already owned by fans. If you accept that Lowe, Wilde and the rest of their cabal are fans, then I would guestimate that 75%* of the Club is already in the hands of supporters (feel free to reduce this amount by every person in the cabal who you don't think qualifies as a fan). *(Lowe's cabal 26%, Wilde 16%, Crouch 10%, Corbett's 6%, other ex directors and associates 5%, other fans guessing at circa 10%+) There are some intelligent people on this thread, so I find it strange how few can differentiate between ownership of a club and having an execuitve and board actually running a company/club.

Fair point, although I would swap with them right now!!!!!!! Do you know who they've got Saturday???? Donny away!!!!!!!!!

Just as pathetic as adriansfc's thread asking us if we want Wotte to succeed.:rolleyes:

Before tonight Barnsley were higher than us in the 8 game current form table. http://stats.football365.com/dom/ENG/D1/oform.html Still think they'll be above us even after tonight in this current form table. But do think Barnsley are someone we need to drag into the fight.

Our goal difference is costing us another point, so effectively 4 points from safety.

When he has played a massive part in the fck up to date and continues it by playing our best striking option just behind the bucket and sponge, then I think he'll get a bit of stick.

Couldn't believe that. Why not start with your strongest team:rolleyes:

Good fightback, but I make it that the gap to safety has widened after tonight. Another plus point of the evening is that I think Derby are in the bottom three as well!!!!

Forest winning is a bummer

2 goals in 2 games!!!!!!! Get in there fella, I wonder what we've been missing?????

Now we might have a chance

Players arguing amongst themselves!!! The honeymoon is over. RIP SFC

Donny winning is BAD!!!!!! Us having no shots is suicidal.

Did I miss off an "s" from equaliser!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AArrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh