um pahars

ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz On the thread about how many points from the next five games I put down 5 points. http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?p=87639&highlight=points#post87639 We've managed 4 points from four games to date, so rather than being negative, a member of the doom and gloom faction or a pessimist, I reckon you should really call me a realist. I think we'll get a draw on Saturday (you of course can predict a 5-0 stuffing of the Royals if you want to).

But just because others are struggling dosn't mean we have to just accept it when we are in the same position. Not only is that pretty defeatist, negative and pessimistic, but it also conveniently ignores the reasons why we find ourselves in such a predicament. The reason why we are struggling is down to our "revolutionary coaching set up" underperforming and nothing to with the position Watford, Norwich or Charlton find themselves in. We will be the masters of our own success or failure. I am fully aware that football is a great leveller and that over a season you get what you deserve. I could just as easily retort that we should be doing a Wolves, Birmingham or Reading, but that would be just as pathetic as their status, form and position is just as irrelevant to our own situation.

The attendance cost is twofold, direct and indirect. Firstly, there is the direct effect of those that won't go whilst he is in charge. I have no idea how large that figure is, but I fear your estimates are on the low side. Secondly, there are those who aren't going as an indirect result of his major decisions, i.e. his choice of manager and the "revolutionary coaching set up" which has underperformed. I'm not sure that I agree that we can again use the financial constraints as an excuse for why we can't initiate change on the managerial front. The manager should be the most important person at any football club and we should endeavour to move heaven and earth to make sure we have the best person that we can at the Club (of course within the obvious constraints of money, reputation and status). Altough there may well be a cost involved in changing the manager, my increasing fear is that the cost of not changing the manager will be horrendous!!!! As others pointed out on another thread, one of the characteristics of a good manager is his ability to get the best from the playing assets he has. I am an advocate of stability, but as was the situation with Wigley, not stability for stablity's sake. There may well be a time shortly when we may have to act on the managerial front to arrest our decline.

Why do you persist with such a poor line of argument??? Just because other teams may or may not have the same problems with Chairman, managers, players or luck doesn't mean it is acceptable for us as well. I take no solace from the fact that Watford or Norwich or Charlton are suffering. Of course we have no divine right to grace the top flght, so to suggest that people think that and to suggest that we should be happy because there are other teams who are also in the mire is such a tired and pathetic line.

He certainly has potential, and like the fact that he is a tall fella. Got rave reviews against Preston, andd has showed flashes of his ability since. However, IMHO he isn't ready to be in the starting line up. Some players might be ready at 17, but for me Oscar should not be starting matches and it was a mistake by Jan to rush him in too early. We need to be careful with these young lads that we don't ruin them before they even start their careers.

Have to agree. It appears that Jan is learning on the job and if it's one thing we can't afford it's carrying novices on and off the pitch. Perry should surely have started and you're right, there is no way Gobern should be starting. On top of that I still despair at the formation of only having one up top at home. It's still not working. We may ge more possession as a result of having 5 in the midle of the park, but we just don't look like threatening the opposition. As far as I'm aware, the Legue don't award points for pretty football in front of the opposition's defence.

Even if you ignore some of the contentious decisions, it never ever seemed as though he was in full control of the game. It was as though he was too slow and the game was passing him by and he was struggling to keep up. He was fckuing quick to flash the red card though!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hear he has already got them!!!!!!! He would have gone in the summer had Lowe not got greedy and demanded a compensation fee from Ipswich.

Let's make our minds up!!! When people were on about this before they said it shouldn't be done as it might distrct on the pitch matters, and when it is done, people moan about how long it lasted. I held back today as wanted to give the lads my wholehearted support, but don't confuse that with tacit support for the current regime. PS Think the ref took the heat off Lowe today!!!!!!!!!

Have to say that once again this division suffers from having appalling referees. But let's not this get in the way that we lost again at home. We started like ameteurs and were like rabbits frozen in the headlights as we leth them take a 2-0 lead. Our defending was rank and they should have been four up before we pulled one back. The defence was appalling with Iwelumo running riot. Would like to know why Perry didn't start, as the middle of defence was crying out for some experience. At 2-0 down, Euell was the only player on the pitch really geeing up the lads as the rest looked dead and buried. But after we went two down, and then down to ten men we played with loads of passion and spirit. However, real chances were few and far between and although we had loads of the play I don't really think we looked like causing too much trouble. Fair play to the youngsters who battled to the end and never gave up. Not sure if we desreved a point as honestly thought they had more goalscoring opportunities than us (and looked more likely to score). Davis - 6 - A few good saves Cork - 6 - Think he was skinned for the second goal, but was OK after that Pearce - 6 - Cracking goal, but part of a defence that looked shaky Lancashire - 5 - As above, but without the goal Skacel - 6 - Got involved and mixed it, but at times looked petulant. Surman - 7 - Some good touches and centee of some good play, but did not get stuck in enough Schneiderlin - 5/6 - A bit anonymous for me Lallana - 7 - As skilful as ever and involved in all the good things. Euell - 7 - Some fighting spirit about him and tried to drive the youngsters on. Gobern - 4 - The game passed him by McGoldrick - 6 - Did some good stuff, missed a sitter, and still nt convinced Perry - 7 - Provided some xperience and battling qualities at the back Wright-Phillips - 6 - Ok, but nothing special Robertson - 5 - Not on long enough. Have to say that Wolves started brightly and looked a very good side, but when we took control of possession, they didn't really look that special. Then again with Iwelumo up front, and another forward off of him they've got the tactics right to do well in this league. Didn't think it was a sending off as the Wolves player launched himself into it just as much as Euell, but also don't think we should have had a penalty at the end (will be changing my mind when the TV replays show a two footed lunge by Euell and an obvious trip on McGoldrick). Good vocal support again from both the Northam and Itchen (with some anti Lowe/Board chants ringing around for a bit).

I doubt he will (he certainly wouldn't do it when challenged about it in 2006, nor two years later!!!). But this is a non issue. Any "personal guarantees"/"strings attached" would have to declared in the accounts.

My little source says something has definitely gone from Crouch to Lowe. Maybe you should ask why their was no response from Lowe. Is it because it doesn't suit him & Wilde as aopposed to not suiting the Club??? As for anyone else hiding up the trees??? Are they (a) just as mythical as the ones Crouch was holding out for, or (b) are they waiting for administration to befall us before picking us up for a song????? (a) Is never a solution as we can all wait for that promised white knight to come riding in (as many, inc myself, told Crouch). (b) Would be a disaster for a number of reasons, not least that we would start from Div 3, but also because it would consolidate Lowe & others as unpopular owners of our Club (which really would be the end of this Club as we know it!!!!!).

Well he wasn't clued up about this one!!!!!! It was blatant scaremongering, and as for his reasons, well of course you can ask him direct if you know him. Lowe has no personal strings attached to the loan notes (other than what he would have a normal capacity as a CEO, i.e. the loan note holders might/might not have confidence in his management).

What was also funny about that show on Thursday night was the sole caller coming on at the end to defend Lowe. Actually, he didn't defemd Lowe as he didn't really say anything in support of him, he was more like playing Devil's Advocate to some of Mark Dennis' more outlandish outbursts. A couple of his gems were: "The shareholders are representing the supporters" & "There are 14,000 up there who are supporting Lowe". If you really think the small cabal of shareholders who are pulling the strings at the moment are represnting the supporters then you are a complete fool. Some may believe they are doing the right thing for the Club, but others are certainly in it for themselves. To suggest they represent the supporters is hilarious. Secondly, how can you claim that those who still attend matches are supporting Lowe is even more ridiculous. Just because people still follow their team, there is no way it can be deemed as even tacit support for the new regime. Of course there are some in the crowd who are still supportive of Lowe et al, but to blindly say those that still go all support the set up is blatant spin. Anyone know who it was??? He came on under the moniker John Lowe (not a relation BTW).

Some dicky bird (not alligned to either camp) tells me there has been correspondence from Crouch to the Club. Is this right????? Maybe you could drop Lowe or Cowen a line to et them to confirm or deny this.

Where did this 17k break even figure come from?????? It's just that I got a snippet from s good source that the break even figure is low 20,000's as the summer transition did not yield the one off incomes, nor the cst reductions that were envisaged. If the 17k figure came from the Club, they maybe they could confirm if this has indeed moved.

I wonder if he still holds that view of his Finance Director?????:rolleyes:

It might be better to go back and have a look at the archives and the run up to that EGM, but from memory I think the issue was that at the start Wilde had never actually agreed to have Crouch on the board. The manifesto certainly never had Crouch down as one of the proposed Directors. He knew he needed Crouch's support, but I also understand that whilst Crouch wanted Lowe out, Crouch wasn't overly sure about Wilde and his team. There was a possibility that Crouch could vote against Lowe et al, but also abstain regarding the 5 replacements. Crouch met with Lowe a few times in the run up, including offering him an important position under Lowe if he didn't side with Wilde. At the same time it would appear that Wilde didn't want Crouch on board, as judging by this e mail, both he and Lowe thought he would be difficult to work with. So how does Lowe influence Wilde to get Crouch on board???? Maybe Crouch used him to get Wilde to get him on the board in return for avoiding a messy EGM. Other tahn that I'm open to suggestions. But did Lowe really facilitate all this knowing just how much of a tinderbox it was??? That sounds pretty spiteful & petty, but at the same time I'm just not sure I buy it. Which then brings us back to Wilde writing such stuff!!!!! Whichever way you look at it, throw in the Runnymede action pints, the email to Stanley (regarding never allowing Lowe back in) and other snippets from Lowe/Wilde/others, and there's no way this current set up offers stability!!!!!!!!!

Lowe doesn't have any strings attached to the stadium "loan" whatsoever. Not an issue. He has no personal influence on this whatsoever in the way you worry. It may have arisen when Jonah was making mischief making and scare mongering in the run up to EGM calling for Lowe's removal by claiming the loan note holders could invoke a clause regarding change of ownership, coveniently forgetting that a change of ownership was not taking place!!!!!!! It was such a noddy argument. (Interestingly it wasn't regurgitated when Lowe & Wilde called an EGM, go figure!!).

Backed down, fculk off, I've even let you drop it to accept substitute appearances.

You can still have it (although 15 appearances, inc sub, is hardly the player who will change the season that the OP is on about LOL).

I bet very few have seen him play. He's managed about 4 games a season!!!!!!

Done, if we're talking starts.

I'll give the guy a chance, I'll cheer him on, I'll be happy to be proved wrong, but I'm just echoing exactly what you yourself have said, I don't think he'll do anything for us.

Moi, a defeatist????? I've got us down as winning tomorrow in the prediction thread and have had many barnies with some whingers who think we have never been that great and should settle for life in the second tier. I'm actually very positive and generally optimistic, but that doesn't mean I'm fcufking stupid when it comes operating in the real world. Do you want o take a wager on how many first team appearances Pulis will make in hi sSaints career????