Alain Perrin

-2 because someone told me the kickoff was 7.45.... doh!

Jesus. You lot would argue about who has the best pair of socks. There are no facts only opinions, and the polls on here, whether they are used to support a Lowe Out case (I know you've done that Um) or to support administration, are worthless. They are a snapshot of opinion, often taken at times of emotion (post win/loss) with loaded questions. i.e. amusing but statistically irrelevant. Would you: a) Want Saints to go into administration. b) Not want Saints to go into administration (and kill your Gran) The sooner people stop dressing opinions up as facts then the sooner we can rebuild and start supporting Saints again (assuming that's what you want).

I can't believe MLT was only on £4K pw. But I don't begrudge football players being paid big bucks. If Robbie Williams sells out a stadium he gets a big pay day, if 22 players provide the same entertainment then they deserve the equivalent remuneration. Clearly we're more Chaz and Dave at the moment, but give it time.

Daren made a good point on another thread: "Pearson was every inch a Lowe appointment. Young, ambitious, British with a strong working knowledge of youth and how to bring them on with his England under 21 experience." I too find it strange that Lowe didn't continue with him, he had the fans on his side after a great escape - so there must have been another reason. - Ego - the 'Lunatic fringe's' favorite reason. Lowe has had belief in the Ajax model since pre-Burley. - Money - did Pearson really cost more (enough to make a difference)? - Loyalty - Lowe had let Wotte down once before, perhaps he felt guilty about that? - Ability - Under 21 experience has bitten us before - stand up Mr Wigley. - Timing - Lowe was plotting his return and the management structure before Pearson came good/got lucky (depending on your view point). So take your pick. Personally I liked Pearson, was happy for him to stay, but think we'd have struggled anyway. We've missed our big money players this year no doubt (even if they were rubbish last year too!).

Pretty certain players get paid monthly... I'd be surprised if any of the 'give youth a chance' signings are on anything more than £2K a week. In my opinion Fish is promising but too young / inexperienced. Hopefully will be a good player in time, but not this year.

LOL. Perhaps the word extremist was misused - it has the wrong connotations, more accurate to say your views are strong ("I now despise the man") - and it's obvious where Nineteen Canteen stands. I am not trying to gloss over anything, this season is a **** up - and Lowe is very much at fault. He made mistakes, too many and ("it's a results business") deserved to go. I just don't think he is to blame for everything.

No. I think you both sounded a bit silly with your **** waving contest to be honest. I think Nineteen Canteen is a pro-Lowe extremist, just as you are an anti-Lowe extremist. I agree with parts of both of your arguments but think that you are equally blinkered on others. But... I don't feel the need to have DM or Fop like rants because I disagree with someone. Buck / responsibility is not same as blame. If Rupert Lowe started the game of cards, someone played the hand in the middle and he laid them down. Either way it was a busted flush. There are other ways of looking at that of course. Mark Wotte was RL's first choice, way back pre-Burley, perhaps he felt a sense of loyalty to him as he was allegedly left in the lurch before. Perhaps Pearson did cost more. yada yada yada. I'm just making a case that things aren't as black and white as either extreme would like to paint them. Pointless though as nothing will change as a result of it, not results or opinions. We're too late for all of that.

No it wasn't, and sorry if you felt I was patronising. We can always say "we should have bought better players" or "we should have retained a couple of our top earners", but the fact we're in administration suggests we don't have any cash. The players that we did buy were bought on buy now pay laters (like Schiederlin), part exchange for a higher earner like Pulis or loans to fill a gap (Cork, Saejis etc.). I don't know the detail, but I reckon the collective weekly wages of the majority of the players brought in at any one time would pay for one week of John (I think he was on circa 14K per week and I doubt they're on much more than 2K each). Either way though, it is money we don't have.

I try to respect everyone's opinion Daren - my comment was sarcasm at some of your vitriol directed at people with views different to yours. I just thought the comment : .... indicated a certain 'one track blame' approach.

Excellent - with that grasp of finances you should work in banking....

Kill me now or kill me later. I'm still dead. Personally I think, regardless of who was chairman, the loan out the high earners / play the youth approach was the only game in town. The question I have is 'was Lowe too aggressive in trying to cut costs', could we have cut less players, won more games and raised attendances enough to stave off administration. Who knows? I don't, you don't, no one does.

Thanks Daren, and I respect your opinion too. I agree that Lowe is responsible for a hell of a lot this season, but I find it amazing that some people cannot see there are other factors at play too. Do I think Lowe's single mindedness about his revolutionary coaching setup cost us - yes I do. Do I think we had much choice but to play youth in the first part of the season, no I don't. BTW when we stopped doing this and playing a few of our higher earners we went into admin.... Personally I doubt that, even without the 'revolutionary coaching set up', we'd have done much better. Pearson had a good pair of lungs on him and appears to be a good motivator, but would he have done better with the same hand that JP/Wotte had? As someone who travelled to Hull to see our thrashing there AND saw us capitulate against Burnley / Barnsley, I doubt his tactical ability. Lowe was sailing the ship when it crashed into the iceberg, so yes, he is to blame. But in my opinion it is naive to think he is the only one to blame. Wilde, Hone, Hoos, Crouch - all those who let us get to a state where pounds were more important than players are also to blame. When Man City went down to the third tier they played to full houses, when we went down we spent the time blaming each other, boycotting etc. C'est la vie.

Sorry mate but that's ********. I am no follower of RL, I just believe to blame him for EVERYTHING is naive.

I thought he'd left?

Hindsight is a wonderful thing JustMike. If only everyone was as perfect as you we'd win every game I still think we'll stay up, but then I'm an eternal optometrist....

Thanks. Working for me.

Any recommendations for streaming of today's game? PM if you don't want to post.

You boys in Dubai were in denial. The rest of the global economy started to nose dive from Bear Stearns onwards (March 2008 I think)

Three points: 1) I don't think this is a thread should be used for attacks on David Luker, it is about doing positive things for Saints. I would suggest that David's role isn't as proxy fundraiser and I am sure he's got other things to do to make sure Saints runs efficiently. 2) ... But someone at the club needs to raise the profile of fundraising. 3) I still think the virtual ticket has legs (I would say that) as it is a tangible thing, rather than a money black hole. 4) His mobile number should be removed pronto. 5) The point about the fundraising is that it is optional. Cutting prices / increasing prices is fraught with problems. If you want to save Saints (and can afford to do so) Saints should be making it as easy as possible to donate. Ok, so that's five points, but you get my drift.

...

Surely the natural conclusion for Saintsweb is to launch a takeover bid. Posters will then be able to finally accept that the fans are to blame for the mess Saints are in.

David Luker's response.... ..snip.. "We already have this set up (kind of). Hopefully the website will begin to promote this fully very soon Effectively, you can make a donation with or without buying a ticket. It can only be done here at St Marys or via the booking line (currently). It works the same as taking a booking fee, but effectively you determine how much you want to give." ..snip.. ............. Personally I think the incentive of virtual tickets is a missed opportunity, but this is time for actions not gimmicks. I'll be ringing the ticket office tomorrow to donate £50 and I'd encourage everyone to do the same.

Does it matter? Does it really matter?

Absolutely my point. Pictures on the boardroom wall have naff all to do with what happens on the pitch, yet they took up pages of posts on here. I find the image of Laurie rushing in, puffed up and self important with a pair of plairs and a screwdriver amusing - although I am sure it didn't happen. But it is indicative... Until this club - and that includes the fans - stops fighting amongst itself, we're destined for continued failure. Failure to respect other peoples views was/is one of Lowe's biggest failings and a lot on this board (like it or loath it) replicate him. People (pro and anti) need to shut up and move on - hence why I didn't like the Leon and Laurie pitch parade and I don't like some of the 'na na na nah you were wrong' kind of posts on here. Saints; the team, what happens on the pitch, is what has always been important - some seem to have forgotten that.

I don't disagree that Lowe going led to more tickets selling, just don't believe it was the only / the major reason. Personally I'd put it down to our perilous situation. I do think it a shame the game didn't deliver. Every time this season that Saints have had a chance to advertise themselves (be it a bigger than average gate or tv slot), they've failed to do the business.