um pahars

Indeed, we were the only Championship game on that night, BUT on other Monday nights other teams have played when we have sat it out. A couple of weeks before us, Burnley played Barnsley on a Monday night, having both played on the Saturday two days earlier. We are not the only ones who have played games in quick succession, nor will we be the only ones going forward,so it's a pathetic excuse, but something I expect from you, who continues to rattle out half truths and errors. Saturday, 06 December 2008 The Coca-Cola Football League Championship Derby1-2 (HT 1-1) Crystal PalaceVarney 41 McCarthy 3 Kuqi 61 Monday, 08 December 2008 The Coca-Cola Football League Championship Crystal Palace3-0 (HT 2-0) SouthamptonKuqi 9 Beattie 15 Ifill 75 Bookings: Hill 43 Bookings: Perry 87 And we played Sheff Weds on the Saturday before the Palace game!!!! My only agenda is to be fair, consistent and wherever possible factually correct (something you would do well to heed).

Whooooooossssssssssshhhhhhhhhh I doubt we were, or else Palace wouldn't have turned up (they played Derby on the Saturday). Then again, I still think we would have only managed a 0-0 draw. And I'm sure that wasn't the only Monday night game, which of course means other teams have had to play two games in three days. Jan seems to think it was an ideal opportunity to bounce back. Some people might liken it to falling off a bike and getting straight back on. If you were top of the table and had some niggly injuries you too might want a break, but at the end of the day them the rules and they're the same for everybody. Using it as an excuse is scraping the bottom of the proverbial barrel. The fixture list is the same for every team in this division, if we can't handle that fixture list, then it just shows that under Lowe and Poortvliet we can't handle this division. I can remember QPR on Xmas Eve & Luton Town on Boxing Day. Excuses have their uses, but now they're all used up, all used.

I fully accept that some just aren't good enough, but I also think others aren't preforming to their best because of tactics, strategies, formations, motivation etc, all things that a new manager could improve/change. The January window might even give us a chance to wheel and deal and get some loans in to replace the poorer players. We need to be looking at this and thinking, this window is probably the only chance we will get to make adjustments to our strategy.

Excuses, have their uses, but now they're all used up, all used © Martn Fry I presume we must be the unfortunate Club as we are the only team who has to play on Boxing Day and then on the following Sunday:rolleyes::rolleyes: Bern, start up a petition to lobby the Championship about this unfair rule which we only suffer from.

Let's all rejoice just because we're as bad as Charlton. Let's all rejoice because we're better than Leeds. Let's all rejoice because we're better than Huddersfiled. :rolleyes::rolleyes: Just because other teams are worse than us we are all expected to thank our lucky stars and put just nochalantly accept our poor position. What a noddy attitude. Suppose it could be worse, I could be supporting Luton:rolleyes::rolleyes:

I am now getting to a point where I wonder whether you are senile!!!:smt035 Most of the stuff above could have been written by my little nephew, who depsite only being 6 said to me yesterday: "It still amazes me how people can blindly follow the crass experiment implemented by Lowe, and activated by Poortvliet. If action isn't taken soon to curtail this folly, then I fear for the future of this once great Club. There may come a time when I have to stop going and start protesting. Lowe's comeback has been a complete and utter failure, on a par with Napoleon's comeback from Elba in 1815. And why do all old people smell of stale urine?":rolleyes: You would do well to read in more detail what others post and then take time to take it all in, before you start thumping the keyboard.;)

Part of that matches with what I heard yesterday, in that I was told Wotton and Jan had a stand up row, hence why Wotton has been banished. If he's lost the dressing room, then he is finished (or we are!!!!!).

As I said above, if you go back 8 games then our current form lifts us two places to 22nd!!! http://stats.football365.com/dom/ENG/D1/oform.html

Propping up the current form table!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! http://www.4thegame.com/statistics/championship/tables/currentform.html Doesn't make pleasant reading (although we're only 22nd in the last 8 games current form table)

But I think they can. Firstly they can criticise him for not getting the best out of the squad he currently has. His poor team selections, his lack of strategies, his fixation with Total Football, his lack of motivation, his inexperience etc etc etc. Secondly they can criticise him for the squad he has acquired. He has brought in something like 12 players, so he has not just had to work with an existing squad. Financial constraints will of course play a part with regards who he can keep and who he can bring in, but there can be no doubting that there was a sizeable degree of latitude with reagrds building up a squad that should have been strong enough not to be in this position. Whichever way you want to look at it, i think Poortvliet has been found wanting!!!!

I think the manager has to take responsibility for the poor results that we arew itnessing under his stewardship. I also think those involved in the procurement and scouting of players have to take responsibility for the obvious failings they have presided over. And of course I think the CEO/PLC Chairman has to take overall responsibility for employing Jan (and his merry men) and for implementing this Revolutionary Coaching Set Up which is failing miserably. This is more than the appointment of a poor manager and I fail to see how even the most rabid Lowe supporter could think otherwise. Lowe is intrinsically tangled in with the Poortvliet appointment. He proactively sought out the job of CEO/Chairman for himself removing the existing incumbents, he removed Pearson to enable Jan to come in, he established the strategy and whichever way you look at it, nailed his colours firmly to this mast. If Poortvliet goes, then so does Lowe. (and at that point I would somehow like to see his small shareholding taken off of him, so we can be rid of such a divisive influence once and for all.)

I think the manager has to take responsibility for the poor results that we arew itnessing under his stewardship. I also think those involved in the procurement and scouting of players have to take responsibility for the obvious failings they have presided over. And of course I think the CEO/PLC Chairman has to take overall responsibility for employing Jan (and his merry men) and for implementing this Revolutionary Coaching Set Up which is failing miserably. This is more than the appointment of a poor manager and I fail to see how even the most rabid Lowe supporter could think otherwise. Lowe is intrinsically tangled in with the Poortvliet appointment. He proactively sought out the job of CEO/Chairman for himself removing the existing incumbents, he removed Pearson to enable Jan to come in, he established the strategy and whichever way you look at it, nailed his colours firmly to this mast. If Poortvliet goes, then so does Lowe. (and at that point I would somehow like to see his small shareholding taken off of him, so we can be rid of such a divisive influence once and for all.)

He may be a decent man, but he has accomplished fccukuk all in real terms in football management. Please don't be fooled by what the Echo and the OS put up regarding his managerial successes. (Now just read the rest of the thread and see 70's Mike has already had a pop, so sorry for the double team, but can only add that even his only notable promotion was when he was out in temporary charge whilst the real manager - Vloet - got his coaching badges and I understand Vloet still ran the things on the pitch with Jan just being a stooge).

He may be a decent man, but he has accomplished fccukuk all in real terms in football management. Please don't be fooled by what the Echo and the OS put up regarding his managerial successes. (Now just read the rest of the thread and see 70's Mike has already had a pop, so sorry for the double team, but can only add that even his only notable promotion was when he was out in temporary charge whilst the real manager - Vloet - got his coaching badges and I understand Vloet still ran the things on the pitch with Jan just being a stooge).

That would have paid for Nigel Pearson!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! False economy me up!!!!!!!:rolleyes:

That would have paid for Nigel Pearson!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! False economy me up!!!!!!!:rolleyes:

Before today, Plymouth were bottom of the current form table, so if it's no surprise to lose to them, then I presume it will be no surprise when we get relegated. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Before today, Plymouth were bottom of the current form table, so if it's no surprise to lose to them, then I presume it will be no surprise when we get relegated. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

I have heard he is going for other reasons, but am doing some digging to substantiate it. I have heard of a bust up over at Staplewood between Wotton and Jan, but not sure (a) if it's 100% genuine, and (b) what it was about. Anyone else heard anything????

I have heard he is going for other reasons, but am doing some digging to substantiate it. I have heard of a bust up over at Staplewood between Wotton and Jan, but not sure (a) if it's 100% genuine, and (b) what it was about. Anyone else heard anything????

And why should we be even bothering with those outside of Southampton who don't give a feck about our Club? What counts is what Saints fans think and the coverage in the local media was pretty decent and it's certainly upped the anti from everyone I have spoken to. At the end of the day, no one was hurt and life goes on, but it may be one extra piece of stuff that helps to turn the tide in this ongoing farce.

And why should we be even bothering with those outside of Southampton who don't give a feck about our Club? What counts is what Saints fans think and the coverage in the local media was pretty decent and it's certainly upped the anti from everyone I have spoken to. At the end of the day, no one was hurt and life goes on, but it may be one extra piece of stuff that helps to turn the tide in this ongoing farce.

But as Chairman and CEO of a PLC and such a high profile position, he should have risen above it. If individual fans want to be childish, then they will be seen for that, but that is no reason for a Chairman of our Club to stoop so low. A Chairman is supposed to chair meetings, be accomodating, concilliatory, inclusive, independent, rational, and Lowe is none of these. His very first act of that meeting should have been enough for Cowen to pull him to one side and have a quiet word in his shell. There is a lunatic fringe, if the meaning of the term is a handful who are against him for more than footballing reasons, but I think the coverage gained through The Echo and on SKY (as well as other media outlets) was more damaging to Lowe. The initial reports from posters on here back did not mention Chorley's antics, but instead highlighted the actions of Lowe and everyone I spoke to was of the same opinion, in that Chorley's little stunt was overshadowed by overwhelming opposition from the floor and overwhelming pomposity from the top table. I could well argue with this as I think alot of what Lowe said was poppy****. His continual rewriting of history, his attacks on past boards, his view that we're playing wonderful football etc etc etc. Anyone with a semblence of a brain knows the 95% figure is in no way indicative of the support that Lowe has (outside of his small cabal of course). And as you say, the "stormy" meeting made the front and back pages of the Echo and certainly brought in home to many that Lowe is not fit for purpose. It also managed to galvanise others into thinking about what the next steps might be, and it also seems to have withered whatever support Lowe had remaining (of course that could all have been achieved by his own actions, including the provocative start to a meeeting that should have been about unity and looking forward). If they had voted then Lowe would have won (probably comfortably), so maybe such a walkout and stormy meeting achieved something that would otherwise been a walkover for Lowe. Just becuase a handful of men with shares think he's right for the job, it doesn't make the wider view of the supporter base to be invalid (impotent maybe, but certainly not invalid).

I think you'll find that I never said it was excusable, and although I think there are some times when direct action has to be taken, I did say in earlier posts that this could have been accomplished in a much better fashion (for instance as Chez suggests, chocolate coins, by someone less confrontational, etc etc etc). Please don't make the mistake of assuming that my disdain of the the way it has been protrayed by Lowe, the Club and the OS, means I automatically support everything Richard Chorley did. That is one big jump my friend. Lowe is the Chairman and CEO of a PLC, he is the figurehead of a Club that is an integral part of the fabric of our community, our city and beyond, but sadly he appears not to be worthy of such an esteemed position if he stoops so low to portray these events as an assault on himself and uses the OS in such a poor and biased way (and make no mistake, just as he did towards the end of his last stint, he is in full control of what appears on that site). That is my main beef with this eposide.

Not according to Lowe. Apparently he believes the number one cause for our drop in attendances is the "credit crunch" and that's first hand from someone who has discussed the drop in attendances with him.