um pahars

The change came about in the 1977/78 season. At the start of that season two important changes were made. Firstly, the East section of the Milton Terrace and one of the chocolate boxes were designated as The Family Centre (something like a 2,000 capacity) which obviously changed the make up of the Milton Terrace. Secondly, that season The Archers was designated as the port of call for away fans, so rather than trying to take the home end, away fans were shepherded to their own section. As a result, the vociferous element of our support followed them to the Archers. I remember the first segregation in that season was a line of coppers half way along the Archers Road and I can clearly remember when Bristol Rovers played that season that looking from the Milton there was blue to the left, red to the right and a line of hard pressed dark blue/black in between trying to keep the two colours from merging!!!!! (This was replaced by proper segregation at the end of that season).

Very dangerous ground by Jan here. Considering all the rubbish we have put up with in recent years, I think those who have turned up this season have been remarkably patient and supportive of himself and the team. I have heard very limited amounts of stick aimed at either the players, the manager or even the board so far. I probably would have expected more considering the trouncings and performances we have recently had to put up with (i.e. last four games have been, 1 point, 10 goals conceded and 1 scored). I think very few supporters have problems with the players as we appreciate the fact that many of them probably aren't up for it. However, the manager and board have made mistakes this season, so perhaps an apology would be better than questioning our support. Thousands have shown their displeasure by walking away, methinks he is treading on thin ice by questioning the support of the hardcore who are left. Maybe the headline should have read: "Fans in plea to Poortvliet".

I think probably for two main reasons: 1) This is his big break, and regardless of the alledged meddling from above he probably thinks it's worth putting up with as this could unlock many doors in the future. This is a good job to have on your CV and despite what AdrianSFC and SadOldGit are saying, we are still perceived as a relatively "big" club. 2) He probably is use to this type of set up from back home. Maybe Saint Martini can add some bones to it here, but perhaps most teams in the Dutch lower leagues use the DOF/Active Chairman approach (although I imagine their DOF is slightly better qualified than the one we currently have).

Are you sure??? I only thought it was the home leg for some reason.

Bu the problem was that Lowe, Wide and Crouch couldn't and wouldn't agree on anything at that time. Even as late on as the Runnymede meeting Lowe could not agree to work with Wilde, and Wilde could not agree to work with Lowe!!!!!!!! And Lowe and Crouch were probably even less likely to agree on anything. All three of them must shoulder their share of responsiblity for allowing their *****fest to get in the way of the Club's future. I have never shyed away from that stance and have maintained that during that period they should have come together for the common good as the Executives were overspending big time. They were all at fault, not just your pet hate Mr Crouch. Indeed, if as you claim Wilde and Lowe were polled about Thompson returning in the summer, then why didn't they have a word in the Executives ear at that point to curb the spending??????? However, just because the shareholders were all acting like dikcs, that still doesn't excuse the actions of the Executives in that period. They were paid professionals who should not have acted in such a cavalier manner. It begars belief that they would increase the salaries at a time when revenue was falling. They didn't need a nudge from the shareholders to remind them they were overspending, they should have known that themselves. PLC executives don't continually refer daily, weekly or even monthly decisions back to the shareholders. They are paid to run the company as they see fit. The Executives must take a huge portion of blame for those poor decisions and they can't hide behind the line "that no one was telling us what to do" or "no one was complaining".

I think we may even have renegotiated this and agreed some sort of holiday on the loan. £2m (or maybe £1m now) isn't gigantic money, but I would temper that by saying it did increase our ongoing cost base and infrastructure costs (rates, maintenance, upkeep etc etc etc). I agree, and don't really tink we had a choice as the option of maintaining the status quo just wasn't fesible IMHO. We had to take the plunge.

Do you really think that Crouch was OK with Hone going out under that piece of fiction. Hone still had the keys to the castle that Monday morning and put that statement out. Crouch (and others) was absolutely livid with the way they absolved themselves of any blame. Of course he ended up swallowing it as it meant the Executives were leaving, but to think the Executives were going with a pat on the back beggars belief. The way the Executives ran the Club for the previous six months (inc Hoos and Jones) and the failure to implement Plan B was a huge mistake. The Executives presided over the period when players wages went up by something like 24% over the same period the season before, a period when revenue was dropping by £7m and you still stand by and support them & say they did an average job. Up until that sumer they did indeed do an average job, but their failure to control spending when income fell away was a big, big mistake. A mistake that they alone took the decision over. What exactly was the point of your initial piece because it did nothing apart from show you up to be rather naive with regards the actions of the Executives and how your support for them in those final six months is seriously misplaced.

You cheeky fkcuker, you've just put quite a few years on me there!!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree, I think Mr Lowe has a big say on almost everything that goes on down at SMS these days. With all due respect to David (who I have always found to be a really nice guy), methinks he is more of the monkey on this one. Maybe a PM to him (is it Ticket Office or David Luker on here???), or a question as a seperate thread might get a response from him on here as to why we missed an opportunity here.

Considering you were wetting yourself yesterday and demanding proof, proof and more proof, just feel free to post up the "new revelations" of how Pearson dipped out. I've got Pearson's number still, so I'll give him a call straight away to get his view on them. 14 & 3/4 years :smt061:smt113

Here's what Rich had to say a few days ago about the ditching of Pearson: "I guess they had to do their best to convince the fans that not renewing Pearson's contract and bringing in Poortvlieet was a positive thing for the club, and not, as it actually was, a huge risk given the level at which he has coached and the complete lack of success that foreign coaches seem to have had at Championship level." Don't really pick up any vibes there that the decision wasn't there's to make. Feel free to embellish us with tales of how Pearson dipped out :rolleyes:

I understand what you're saying and many would agree. My solution would have been to have made more of an effort to personalise the stadium. I'm sure as fans we could have come up with many ideas of making us feel more at home there (and maybe we still can). PS At least we have a definitive singing section in the Northam, many Clubs haven't even managed that in their new grounds.

I would agree. It was different from the type of borrowing that Leeds undertook (i.e. they spent it on players and wages) and as you say it was an investment that had a chance to pay for itself. There was always a risk abut servicing the debt if we went down, but on the whole I think it was a good decision. As someone else mentioned, going down so soon after completion was not in the plans, but I don't think you can knock Lowe et al for building SMS.

Are we still in Pearson dipped out mode:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Just who do you think wrote this total b******** statement thanking the Executives for their hard work and creditable results???? I'll give you a clue, it was the outgoing Executives themselves. Hold on a minute, I thought you maintained that the Execs did nothing wrong during their time here. Are you now saying their own claims that they did a creditable job are horse?????? Just what exactly is your position as you seem to be changing sides more times than the Italians did in the World War II And once again you totally miss the point. This statement was written by the Executives who only a month or so earlier had been running the scare story about the January firesale. So why the sudden change of heart from them??

Wotton and Forecast didn't feature and Perry was here last season. So only 2 out the 9 odd new signings featured. HTH.

2-0 victory Surman double.

Were you one of the lucky ones amongst us that received Sundance's unsolicited rants via a PM when he announced he was leaving this board a few months back??? Can't remember who else was on the cc list and want to read it again for a giggle.

I also didn't think that NP was the finished article, but he certainly installed some steel, passion and belief in both the team and the players. For the first time in ages there was a semblence of spirit and unity about the place. His comments (and I have put them up here many times) show he was more than willing to work with, and use, the youngsters, and that he was also aware of our financial problems. He knew players had to go. I also think he would have been his own man and only brought in players he wanted to bring in, and he would have only played te way he wanted to play, i.e. I don't think he would have stood for any interference, interference which IMHO is addingto our problems.

As a start, our squad last season was way too big for a Club in the CCC. We were quite right to cull loads of them with many of the ones you mentioned not even getting a look in on a regular basis - Baseya, Hammill, Licka, Ostlund, Pericard, Rasiak etc etc etc. To be honest they were no real loss. And then of course we're so desperate for players and our squad is so threadbare this season that only 2 of these new signings actually featured against Swansea on Saturday. Good job we brought 9 in so that we could play 2 of them!!!!!!!!!

I was actually agreeing with your analysis (just didn't say it).

Not from yours I'm not!!!!!!!! I have no doubt it's financial and any latitude we probably had was used up bringing in 9 odd new faces over the summer. Decisions have been made this summer and we will have to sit back and see if they are the right ones, but as we stand here today, I'm starting to think too many of them were false economies and we didn't prioritise correctly. We're still very weak and the back and toothless up front.

And as you and others have pointed out in the past, there is no such thing as a free transfer or a free agent. And as you have often said, there will be agents fees, loan fees, signing on fees, accomodation expenses, wages etc etc etc. Add all those fees & wages up (and things such as Webster's salary) and you have a nice little sum that may have been better spent on bringing in some experience or retaining the good players we already had. We obviously have had some latitude with regards the finances, so let's not pretend otherwise.

I would certainly have preferred him to have gone rather than John (but that's only if the manager decided to play him!!!!!!!!!), but perhaps the question should be why have we put 9 or so new faces on the wage bill (along with all the fees that come with them)?