um pahars

Apparently we have changed formation and Lallana has moved back to his normal role. Both Solent and Hampshire were pretty critical of the first half performance and the way we lined up. Lallana to score in his free role. 1-1 for me.

It is slightly perplexing that despite getting rid of three strikers, these two don't even get a look in!!!!!! And when someone asks for alternatives, then one would be not to have signed these two (look after the pennes etc etc etc) Not overly sure I can agree with that, as we had that too many times earlier on in the season, when quite frankly just because they have come through the system doesn't mean they can perform at this level.

"Swansea have only scored 10 in 7 home games, so they're not real prolific" says ole Will. What do you make of our 5 goals in 6 Will??? Armstrong reckons we're disjointed and a disappointing display.

Oh the old "don't want to do a Leeds" chestnut, which Lowe himself would trot out now and then. Leeds were a one off absolute ficuiking nightmare who took out long term loans and then spent the money on wages and players. No one, not one single person ever suggested we shoud go down the Leeds route. It was a crap scare mongering answer which failed to answer any real questions. Indeed it doesn't, but having three managers in one season (with one of them being the disastrous Wigley) is a guarantee that you will be in the shyte. They employed three managers as well, and lo and behold, they ended up n the shyte as well. And I don't thnk anyone would have been so upset had we given it our best shot and been relegated, just as three get relegated each year. Instead our managerial merry go round was tantamount to Footballing Hari Kari. No, because as you rightly point out, three have to go down every season.Therefore it just means for many, on these occasions 17 teams were simply better than them. However, in our case we made some massive mistakes which ensured we were one of the worse teams. We went down without a whimper. I'm sure others have made similar sized mistakes as us, and I would like to think that they would also have been hled to account and where appropriate relieved of their duties. Lowe was the only person to oversee three managers (inc Wigley) and that's the statistic that is the most succinct when discussing our fall from grace.

I would happily settle for someone who can stick away 20 goals from 40 chances!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If you did a similar analysis on McGoldrick, it would be something like 1 from 40!!!!!!!!!!!!

IMHO that story was more to do with the *****fest going on at the time with Hone and Crouch than anything else. I think both sides were pontificating and posturing and their own little fight meant the Club was a sideshow for a short perid. I could never get my head around why someone would write out a cheque and hand it over (that's about the only factual part you can rely on in this story), but then the recipient would need to go back to ask if they could cash it (they've given you the cheque, isn't that enough???) and then a few months down the line when the cheque still hasn't been cashed the original person says hold on (is that after he has been foced out and he says ficuk you???). Like I said I think it was a side show between two men who hated each other.

Firstly the price wanted by those with any substantial chunk of shares is way OTT. Secondly, it's actually the norm that Non Executive Directors/Chairman don't have a large shareholding in their company to ensure they are "independent" and not influenced by a financial interest..

Something I alluded to when I said: "We could have looked to have formed a board and leadership that the supporters would have respected, trusted and as a result would have rallied around, but instead the main players fought amongst themselves for control of the hot seat." Egos (and personal greed???) ensured that personal ambitions and desires were put before the good of the Club, as each of the main shareholding blocks fought to get their man in the hot seat. Why were many of them so shortsighted to think that the only alternatives were from the existing (and failed) shareholders?????

But why are fans staying away???? Quite simply because we haven't been winning games (particularly at home). And one of the main reasons we haven't been winning games is because we have only scored 5 goals in 6 home games. And IMHO one of the reasons we haven't scored many is because our top scorer last season hasn't really featured. And so we don't win many home games and fewer fans turn up. It's a downward vicious circle with the cause and effects being obvious to almost everyone (except a few who really can make a difference!!!!!!). Any fool can cut costs, it's easy. What is more difficult is getting a side together that wins games and brings the fans back, which in turn increases revenue, which in turn means we can hold on to players. Some may say that the fans have to do their side of the bargain first and turn up, but I'm fed up of fans being blamed for our current predicament. We have always been the innocent victims of mistakes, egos and failures. IMHO it is up to the board and the management to start delivering. Now of course if we had a board and leadership that fans trusted and respected, then there could be a chance that a rallying call would galvanise the fans to turn up irrespective of results, but sadly the current leadership are a million mies away from being able to do that. So results on the pitch are even more paramount to boosting crowds, which brings us back to the folly of releasing probably the ony player left on the staff who can score on a regular basis.

A while back we had a number of alternative routes we could have pursued. We could have gone for an alternative manager to Jan. We could have considered an alternative style of play. We could have brought in alternative players to the 8 or 9 we did. We could have done alot of footballing things differently during the close season. And with regards leadership we could have gone for an alternative set up in the boardroom, but no one, including Crouch, looked beyond themseves as an alternative. We could have looked to have formed a board and leadership that the supporters would have respected, trusted and as a result would have rallied around, but instead the main players fought amongst themselves for control of the hot seat. There were alternatives, and to suggest Lowe, Jan and the youngsters were the only option is naive and simplistic. However, there may well be a case to suggest we are now lumbered with what we have got on and off the pitch. We can live in hope (which is all that is left for many), but Lowe is inextricably linked with Jan and so I see no movement there and I'm not sure the shareholders have the vision or passion to seek out any alternative on or off the pitch. Lowe has certainly made his bed, the only problem is that it's not a praticularly comfortable bed, and few want to share it with him!

Was Jan naive in making the: "We're aiming for the play-offs." statement after the Derby game?

Were you saying the same halfway through Wigley's regime?????

I haven't given up .............................................. yet!!!!! I'm still hoping that there will be something that will galvanise the fanbase and get the spirit back. Have no idea what shape or form it will take, but I'm just not ready to give up at this point. My fear is that with football in general going down the pan our own position is magnified with the current regime sucking (and have sucked) the lifeblood out of the Club. One thing that is for sure is that they are certainly not the men to galvanise the fanbase.

Different performance fees for Championship and League Cup games??????

The alternative was to augment the good youngsters we already had (Lallana et al ) with some experienced players (either retaining the existing ones or getting a couple in on a free e.g. Darren Moore types) instead of adopting a sort of scatter gun approach and getting in Holmes and Lewis Hamilton, Pekhart and Robertson etc etc etc. We obviously had some leeway given the fact we bought 9 odd players in, and I whilst I would have offloaded many of the players we did offload, I would have been more careful and considered about who I brought in and who I retained. Then of course there was the alternative of retaining Pearson and building on his good work. Then of course there was the alternative of getting in someone without the baggage of Lowe as CEO and/or Chairman, and also someone without the baggage of Wilde. There were most definitely many roads that are blocked off to us at the moment due to our financial status, but let's not be naive to think that there haven't been decisions made where we could have gone for an alternative.

As others have pointed out: a) this is about false economies, and b) there are/were alternatives. We went with the "revolutionary coaching set up" and dabbled with an experiment that has yet to pay off. There was a choice to stick with someone who looked as though they were turning it around or go with someone who knew close to faecuk all about this league. We then spent a sum of money on 8/9/10 signings, and even if some were frees and some were young, it was still money that could have been spent elsewhere. Of course some of the options we may want to pursue aren't available because of our current financial predicament, but let's not also pretend that everything was a fait accompli. We have made many decisions about how and where the money should be spent and/or saved, and from where I'm sitting right now they don't look to be the best decisions I have ever seen.

I'm glad you picked up on this as I too thought it was a bit weird!!!!! I wasn't sure if Jan had not explained himself very well (not being fluent and precise in English) or whether he was insinuating we couldn't afford to play Stern. As for him being lazy and a waste of space last season, then what planet are some people on???? His goals helped save our sorry ar55ses last season. And whilst we may have lost better quality players in previous season, given our current predicament of only scoring 11 goals (21st worst in the division) and the fact that we are in dire need of a striker makes his loss particularly acute.

My Blackadder references will be about the best you can get at the moment. Curmudgeon me up:D

Oh, for a minute there I thought you were being serious then and washing over Lowe's involvement in our financial meltdown Not really. If we are to do the blame game fairly, then Lowe would be General Melchett, Wilde would be Captain Darling and Crouch would be Lieutenant George. None of them are/were that competent at running the show, but some were most definitely more to blame than others for the predicament we now find ourselves in.

This credit crunch must have hit Leon particularly hard!!!!!!!!!

To be fair, I think KK is a one off special case (maybe of the nut kind) who I wouldn't trust with my pocket money!!!

Sorry, I must have misread the following as the problems were started by Wilde and added to by Crouch, with Lowe not getting a mention. Silly me!!!!!!!!!!!

Include the one off parachute payment and we still lost £9m out the door in that first period down. So with £9m cash out the door (also as a tease, one of Lowe's last acts was to give Rasiak a mega wonga 4 year contract which would run 2 years past the parachute payments), I really do think it is slightly naive to exclude Lowe from the causes of our financial troubles.

The last time I looked an inventor comes up with something new!!! The concept of spending more than we got in began 1 minute after relegation whilst Lowe was at the helm. We lost £16m cash out the door (before the one off parachute payment) on normal operations in the 13 months under Lowe following relegation

We have been spending more than we have earned for the last 41 months. Crouch was at the helm for 6 of them.