um pahars

And considering SMS (and my place) is on the Envionmental Agency's flood warning area map, maybe we should be thinking of stilts, dykes & boulders or an Itchen Barrier!!!!

P15sed up or attention seeking????? I'll let you decide!!!!!! Love the bit with the sign off of SAN SIRO which is in Milan. AC Milan and Internazionale Milano sort of ruin that line of argument :rolleyes:.

IMHO you are missing the point here. Whilst some are staying away as a form of protest, the majority of the stay ways are doing so because quite simply the product on offer doesn't interest them i.e. poor quality team (seen or perceived), lack of home wins, lack of goals, lack of atmosphere, poor value for money, lack of community spirit/no sense of purpose etc etc etc. They therefore may not be the loyal uber fans that we want, but there is nothing we can about that. That is their decision and as a Club we have to accept that, but at the same time look for a solution to entice them back. For me, the damage starts by all of the problems I have listed above (along with many others) that then manifests itself in reduced attendances. That would mean a loss of approx 2.5million, a reduction of some 11m - 12m if you're talking at an Operational level from last years figures. Whilst I'm sure we have made savings, I don't think they have been at that level. As I said above, I don't think the majority are staying away as a demonstration (although I fully accept many are staying away in protest). We either need to win them back by on the field performances, or by achieving something off the field that galvanises the support and creates something people believe is worth rallying behind in the absence of those winning performances. Sadly I don't think that the current regime can deliver on either of those fronts, as we stand here today!!!!

I just think that when you least expect it, something will come up. I reckon Reading will have the balance of play, the majority of chances, but we will come away with a point. 1-1 with Surman scoring late on.

Have to agree Wes in that at last there are some decent exchanges of ideas (and I'll take my fair share of blame for being an antagonistic little shytte at times:rolleyes:). So here's my thoughts: 1. If we're talking about representaion on the board then currently one large tranche of shares. i.e. Crouch's 10% (or something like 16%+ if you include his closest supporters) has no representation on the board. If we think representation is a good thing, then it should probably be consistent. 2. I too am yet to be convinced of the problems of having some independent Directors and/or Chairman on board. So would it be possible to have an Independent Non Executive Chairman, a non alligned CEO, retain the FD & have representation from the three larger groups as Non Execs????? And maybe I'm being really picky, but given the "Lowe" factor over unity, couldn't Mike Richards and/or Cowen represent that shareholding group???? 3. I see no reason why Lowe must retain both the positions of CEO & Chairman, and being honest I would much rather he held neither role. Firstly as a CEO he has made too many errors in recent years on an operational basis, and secondly at Chairman level I don't think he has the independence, the respect or the personality for such a role at this Club. 4. So although a balance of Independence and shareholder representation could be the way forward, how would this actually work in practice??? How do we arrive at the big decisions over the manager, the strategy, transfer policy??? How would Crouch react if the majority voted for a French duo playing the youth as our next managerial set up??? How would Lowe/Cowen react if the the majority voted for a Geordie duo playing 35 year olds??? Would they accept a majority vote, would a consensus develop or would you just task the CEO to deliver in much the same way as a manager is tasked to deliver on the pitch. I personally think something needs to be done as I just don't tink the current set up is delivering on or off the pitch. I also fear that we may soon have to bite the bullet with regards Jan, so potentially the next decision we have to make could be so important for the future of this Club.

Where I knew about boardroom politics and reshuffles I put it down (Derby & Leicester for starters), but I'm sure Sunderland had Murray through the early days and then on to Quinn and his consortium (of course I dont knowall the ins and outs of clubs). We were stable in the boardroom for 9 or so years, although of course many would liken it to a stable dictatorship;) (dont get too wound up there, just tongue in cheek). Of course we're not unique and there are probably quite a few teams whohave gone through managers and coaches, but I think we must be up there with the worst of them for going through managers and the backroom staff that goes along with it (as well as the changes in playing personnel brought upon by the different managers having their favourite players and favourite playing styles).

Is my memory playing tricks on me, but didn't another fanzine at the time (or it might have been On The March again) have a smartie sellotaped to every front cover as some of sort of suicide pill to take if you though the football was bad. Sort of twisted, but IMHO that sort of twisted balck terrace humour.

What happens at other clubs has no bearing whatsoever to what happens to us. Just because other clubs have fallen on hard times doesn't mean we should just shrug our shoulders and accept crap managers, crap chairman and crap players. "They're rubbish, so we might as well just be as bad":rolleyes::rolleyes: You're quite right it was no accident, rather it was as a direct result of a number of poor decisions which culminated in relegation. And the person overseeing the majority of those poor decisions (and particularly those that had the most negative impact) was Lowe. I have no problem with the issue of relegation, the meritocracy of the league system or that the league table never lies, but I also believe you shouldn't bury your head in the sand and ignore what saw us relegated (mainly because I would not like to see those mistakes repeated!!!). They may well face the same economic constraints, but that does not mean they have to make the same stupid mistakes that we made, mistakes which have cost us millions and mistakes which look as if they are being repeated again, ultimately seeing us hurtle towards oblivion. In your world it would appear that you have no control over your own destiny and you just have to accept your fate. IMHO, that's defeatist and negative. We may not have a divine right to dine at the top table, but that certainly doesn't mean we just accept our fate down here and don't give it our best shot at getting back up there. Then again when we were there last time you reckon we were merely a poor team:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Actually going through those clubs, although many have fallen on hard times for a multitude of differing reasons, how many have gone through shedloads of managers in the same way we have (and also had the costs of change that this thread alluded to)???? Sheff Weds (Would certainly say mismanaged with all the costs of those foreign premiership stars carbone etc, plus they've gone through about 8 managers in 10 years) Derby County (From Pickering to Sleighthome & others fcugking up, along with 7 managers in the last ten years, you woould argue they've been mismanaged). Leicester (the last club to use the administration option to their benefit and not be penalised has certainly gone through managers. Not overly sure of mismanagement prior to going in to Administration, but Milan has installd the revolving managerial door). Bradford (Geoffrey Richmond and his overspending wrecked the club) Portsmouth (enough said) Spurs (6 managers in 10 years, but not sure they've been mismanaged to the same extent as we have, although you could argue they have underperformed) Newcastle (once again not really sure of mismanaged as from Hall through to Shepherd they've raised the cash, 6 managers in 10 years) Sunderland (3 managers in ten years & not sure of massive mismanagement, just suffering from falling out of top flight). We've had 10 managers over the last ten years and a few boardroom reshuffles and I'm bored now!!!!!!!!!!

A drop kick (I think from the Archers, scoring at the Milton), whilst playing for Leicester in 1967. You're right in that Forsyth was in goal. I'm sure I've seen it on the TV somewhere (will go and have a look around).

There's a few Scottish teams in there!!!!!! But my mistake with the technical vocabulary, I meant listed PLC's of which there are a handful. This is a good article and I like the bit that says : From Arsenal to Millwall, all of the remaining quoted football clubs are private companies in all but name, as they are controlled by a single owner or group of investors. Could certainly apply to us, with a cabal in control of 42%, which whilst not representing an overall majority, it means that this group is able to run the Club as they see fit. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/marketreport/2787675/Listed-football-clubs-score-own-goals.html

But the misguided actions of Lowe and Wilde are the things that have directly, and indirectly, brought this Club down. Their actions have had a disastrous affect on attendances. You can shout, pontificate and moan as much as you want, but that won't make the fans return. They have to be lured back by either winning matches or by believing in those in charge. Neither is happening at the moment. It is the actions of those in charge (both direct and indirect) that has driven the fans away. Let's be clear about that fact.

There was no way that we could have afforded to keep all three of those, but how about at least one of them?????

There's no doubt that that turnover of managers is probably going to ****k you over in the long term and Mandaric is certainly not a shining example of what I would call a good Chairman (although he isn't shy of putting his hand in his pocket!!!). That said, just because Mandaric is mental doesn't mean therefore that Lowe is fantastic. In fact, his record of managerial cokc ups (particularly in that fateful relegation season) ****uked us over and his choice of the "revolutionary coaching set up" isn't looking too clever either.

To be fair most Official Sites (including ours in the past) are normally fairly optimistic and are not exactly impartial, but I would also say that since the summer ours has gone into overdrve and taken optimism, spin and bullshyt to a new level. Combined with the sychophantic reporting of the Daily Echo you have to wonder just how thick they think the average fan is. If one of it's duties is to reach out and embrace the fanbase, then I have to say I personally feel it is failing dismally.

LMFAO. There is an even worse case on here and that's the poster who keeps moaning about the atmosphere at the ground and the lack of support in voice and numbers, yet he doesn't actually attend matches himself. Soemtimes you couldn't make it up LOL.

Interesting looking at those appearances stats and didn't realise Niemi played so few and Shilton so many. 106 games in 3 1/2 seasons reflects those injury troubles that Niemi struggled with at times, compared to Shilt's 242 games in 5 seasons which must have been almost ever present. Niemi would have got my vote had he not been up against someone of Shilton's stature.

Who wrote that???? The RSPCA or the NSPCC would have a field day. That sounds like a recipe for disaster or a YTS at Longleat getting the keys mixed up.

I think you will find they're not. About a handful in the English Leagues are PLC's

I'm all up for being as viable as is possible in this league, I'm all up for cutbacks in non essential areas and I'm all up for some difficult decisions. But any fool can just go in and cut out the biggest costs. What makes an inspirational, clever and respected leader is someone who makes the cuts that don't damage the core business, fights tooth and nail to keep hold of the essential revenue drivers and keeps the assets that will ensure customers still come through the doors. Otherwise you will just go on and on in one downward spiral of a death by a thousand cuts. Supporters need to believe there is something in it for them, but Lowe and Wilde have failed to get that key message across, or if they have tried, very few have bought in to it.

Aha, the old dull accountant's way of looking at business. How about being inspirational and growing your revenues, producing a product that people will buy, tempt them in to parting with their money with a promise that they will get value for money and then deliver on that promise. Grow some spirit, enegender a good relationship with the community, employ people with empathy towards the fan base, let's creat a spirit where we are all behind the cause. Nah, let's just say we've only got 9,000 mugs this season, let's cut to the bone, make do with what we've got, beg steal and borrow elsewhere and if results are rubbish and fans stay away, we'll just cut again, and if that diminishes the product and results are rubbish and fans stay away, then we'll just cut again, and if that diminished the product and results suffer and fans stay away, then we'll just cut again. The problem is that I fear your way of thinking and mindset is what is driving this Club at the moment. There is no inspirational leadership at the Club, no community spirit and no one who we can rally behind.

I'm getting confused now;) So are only those who attend matches allowed to moan, or is no one allowed to moan???? Are there degrees of moaning allowed (which works on a sliding scale based on attendance and monetary contributions - is it a linear relationship or an exponential one?)???? We really do need to be told as I don't want to upset the "uber fan" police on here or at SMS. I'm sure there are loads of us wanting to know just what type of fan we are and what are moaning rights are. How about a little excel spreadsheet that we can type our attendance and financial contributions in to that will then work out our moaning quotient. How about that for you next little ditty on the main page of this site (much more interesting that your Solent City Rangers scribble or your Gridiron revelations :smt015)

Probably a wrong turn of phrase there. More a kind of "agreed to work together through gritted teeth" sort of relationship!!!!! Not sure it would bring in enough wonga to do anything other than keep the wolves fromt he door for short while. Of course it might be better than nothing, but all you would really be doing would be to buy another 6 months to a year. Something might happen during that year to get us up the table, but it's not guaranteed and you would have to be able to afford to lose that money!!!! Additionally, who else would underwrite such a rights issue/placing apart from Crouch???? On the back of a fag packet If we wanted to raise 3million at the current share price, he could proably underwrite 2/3rds of it and not breach 29.99%, but who would take up the other 1 million??????

I haven't got a season ticket, nor do I go to away matches. Do I lose 10% of the right to moan offset because of the non ST and a further 50% because of the non away attendance???? And what's the offset loss because I don't buy anything from the Megastore????? We do need to know how to be the best fans GM, please tell us as I'm sure we all want to be uber fans [sic] just like you. Please, please, do tell.

You don't annoy me fella, and there's no need for spell checker there!!!!!!! The Runnymede minutes showed how intransigent all three of them were and how although there was some common ground, dislike of Executives, dislike of SISU offer etc, there was more thann an element of mistrust in the background. Obviously two of them ironed out their differences, but not sure you would be able to get the three of them o work together. Anything is possible, but I just reckon there is too much history between them all and a different take on the way forward. I think the manager would be a classic case in point, and although I have no inside track to any of the big three, I reckon that Lowe thinks the revolutionary coaching set up is the way forward, I reckon Crouch would be more minded of a Pearson style set up, whilst Wilde would just agree with whoever shouted the loudest or offered him the Chairman's seat. I'm not sure what the solution is (maybe it's some independent and unrelated set up), but I also know the current set up is not working.