Fowllyd

I know - I really should apologise to all forum members...

LSE special conditions aren't really a guide here. If an individual or consortium had agreed behind the scenes to buy all shares belonging to Wilde plus Lowe and chums, that would give them about 42% of total shares and put them in effective control of the club. This could be done with no prior notification of the LSE. Once the shares were bought it would be a different matter, of course. I'm not writing this because I believe anything's going to happen tomorrow, by the way - I don't.

You really shouldn't make a habit of referring to yourself in the third person - it's a very bad road to be going down. I assume that you are aware of pronouns because you use them elsewhere.

Ah yes - I'd forgotten about that! I'm pretty sure he was as English as he was Nigerian though - like John Fashanu, had a Nigerian parent and could have played for either country. And I have a feeling that he only played for Nigeria after he left Saints. OK, I'm clutching at straws here... Maybe I should just say that this supports my view that players being home-developed, rather than of any particular nationality, is what really matters!

The first-choice team in 1983/84, which achieved Saints' best ever league position and an FA Cup semi-final, was not just British but entirely English - Shilton, Mills, Dennis, Agboola, Holmes, Wright, Williams, Armstrong, Wallace, Worthington, Moran. This was after Golac had left, though he did return later on. I don't get too excited about fielding a 100% British team, though it's certainly a novelty these days. What matters to me more than nationality is having a team with a good number of home-developed players - of the team I've named above five were home-grown (six if you count Wright, who was very young when he came here from Oxford).

You mean they get all caught up in rolls of toilet paper, then drag it about all over the pitch?

Or maybe your oat!

Let's hope so - and, to make things a little more interesting for them, there's this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/sep/23/portsmouth.premierleague No doubt the Premier League will do their usual load of bugger all, but it made me laugh nonetheless...

I think there should be a choice for 'hangover from last season' or something along those lines. After all, we finished two places above the drop zone and played some dire football for much of last season; this is sure to have had an impact on gates this time around I'd have thought.

I can only assume that prolix pomposity is what passes for wit (cerebral, cerebal, cereal or otherwise) in Sundanceland...

The fact is that he's not been threatened with anything at all. The piece claims that he risks facing a fatwa - to back this up they quote a single fan. So it's a nasty little bit of scaremongering, nothing more than that.

Do you know all of this for certain? It's not the first time you've posted to this effect. If you do, then how (without naming names if you can't do so, of course)?

Two different things, surely. In the games I've attended this season, I've been impressed by the fact that we've generally played in a patient manner, keeping hold of the ball and waiting for an opportunity for a telling pass forward. If this means playing it around the pitch, square and back, then that's fine - I'd far prefer to see that than watch a hopeful hoof forward which is headed away by the opposition. And it's clearly our game plan to play that way. WG's comment concerns execution of the game plan - there were plenty of times last night when players failed to spot a good passing opportunity, for example. But that shouldn't be taken to mean that the entire game plan is at fault. We can - and I hope we will - improve in this area.

So, when you state that you see the need for change, do you expect all other posters to nod sagely and agree, with no consideration of what that change should be? It's no more than reasonable to ask that question, just as it's perfectly fair to expect a supporter of the current set-up to defend their position. This is a forum for debate, after all. Oh, and I'm not an apologist for Lowe or anybody else, just in case you're wondering.

I seem to remember a certain Alan Ball playing in central midfield... But I like the idea of Gillett as a full back - he's a tenacious little bugger and can tackle. Not sure if he's predominantly left-footed - he takes corners and free kicks with his right. He looked excellent in the Carling cup match against Birmingham I thought, then anything but against Blackpool and tonight.

Pretty much how I saw it. We looked fine up until they equalised in the first half - and we looked good because we were playing fluent, attacking football. Short passes, quick movement off the ball - the sorts of things I'll happily pay to watch. We had a dodgy patch after they equalised, then get better towards the end of the first half. Wouldn't agree about McGoldrick though - he didn't have a great game, but I didn't think he looked like he couldn't be arsed. After they took the lead we looked pretty dreadful for a while, but I felt we improved with the twin substitution - Schneiderlin and Pekhart both introduced a level of dynamism that had been lacking. But a while after that, we reverted to hopeful hoofs upfield, rather than actually passing the ball. We simply can't do that, and it showed. Pekhart took his goal very well I thought; it was almost as flukish as their first one, but his finish was fine (in stark contrast to Dyer's inability to hit the target when clean through with the score at 1-1). Overall, though, it was a good game of football to watch, both teams going for the win right up to the final whistle. There are areas we need to improve and I hope we can do so; there's too much seat-of-the-pants defending, not enough chances being taken, plus (in two of the three matches I've seen) we've had spells of hit-and-hope play rather than passing the ball.

Yes, that'll be it - and about time too!

OK. As far as I'm aware we have four main coaches at the club - Poortvliet, Wotte, Hockaday and Henderson (I haven't seen anything to say he's moved on, but I could have missed it). There is no new Dutch guy; there was a thread on here about a Dutch coach coming in for a couple of days, but that's about that. So we'll have a tough job saving his salary, but then there's always Henderson's to be saved. Both Hockaday and Henderson were here already, so their positions with the club owe nothing to either Lowe or the current set-up. Hockaday did take a step up as part of the new set-up, admittedly. What the hell, we'll get rid of them along with Poortvliet and Wotte. Now all we need is an experienced, hard-nosed, old-fashioned manager. One who'll manage and coach the first team, the reserves, the youth teams, run the academy. He'll have to, as we've just removed the people who did all of those things. Yes, I can see where you're coming from...

I'll be there...

Ah, OK - I can see Alpine's point now. Can't see it happening though, for a variety of reasons. As far as I know Lowe is paid; he's effectively the chief exec so it would be odd if he weren't. Jones will obviously be paid as FD, don't know about Wilde or Cowen though.

Don't want to seem picky, but are you sure you meant 'exceeds' - I'd have thought it would make more sense if he were to forego a week's salary if attendance is below 22,000, not above...

Yep, that ol' bandwagon is up and rolling - nothing can stop it now!

I agree about his taking a back seat; after a few pieces on the OS - remember the Dyer's new contract one? - I thought we'd be seeing Lowe's grinning face plastered all over the site, plus innumerable quotes and so forth. But those fears are assuaged, for the time being at least. Long may it last.

Well said.

I wouldn't argue with that - though the draw at home to Everton was a result of a single player's actions rather than anything else; whatever I may think of Bagpuss, he couldn't do anything about that, and those two points would have kept us up. I do have my doubts about whether Hoddle would have proved to be any better, that's all.