Alain Perrin

Sorry completely disagree. Burley's post match interviews were ramblings, barely making any useful comment. The post match interview with Tom P****y on Radio Hampshire was a joke. Of the interviews I have read from JP, he at least has identified the things I (as a fan) see as wrong (overplaying etc.). Whether he has the where with all to fix it is a another question

I think based on early performances we all (well most of us) got carried away. We played Brum and Derby off the park after all. I would suggest however that in the cold light of day nobody at St Marys thought the playoffs were likely before (or as it turns out after) those promising results. I don't agree that letting Dyer go would have been a good idea. He's an asset (on the books at least) and provided that we eventually sell him for more than the wages we pay him, that'll be a good bit of business. Yes you can argue as to whether the wages you pay him could pay a cart horse for a year but we need to think about tomorrow as well as today - it is a balance. Skacel I do agree should have gone, by whatever means. However Scheiderlin, Holmes and Cork have shown that they can contribute. Forecast is just the third choice keeper (about the same contribution as Poke).

Except it isn't that is it. 5000 fans probably half of which are concessions (kids, students, OAPs) so it is only probably about £1.5m. That also doesn't include signing on fees, agent fees, getting the right players for the right positions, your experienced manager who will need paying, plus his staff, contracts that need paying off (both to get him and get rid of our existing). It's nice to think it is easy to do the maths, but it isn't. I believe kids were the only viable option that we had and I don't blame Lowe for pursuing it.

I'd like to apologise (specifically to Um Pahars) for suggesting that defeat doesn't hurt some of those with more negative (realistic?) attitudes as much. I just get that impression from some people's posts but we wouldn't be logging on here if we all didn't want the same thing. Unfortunately the only thread I can cling to after last nights debacle is that a loss to a Div 2 side should leave no one in any doubt as to what our real target is this year.

It doesn't suit my agenda, any more than being able to afford to sign Ronaldo would. Perhaps I am naive, but I accept the fact that we have no money and are on the brink of administration. I believe administration is not a pleasant option and we should try to avoid it. I am certain you could change who the experienced heads are (trade Rasiak for Thomas + Perry for example) but I think ultimately the mix of youth and experience we have is driven by an unchangeable budget. I don't agree with Um Pahar's that Pearson's squad mix would be (could be) much different to be honest. I am yet to see any alternative approaches coming from you which will change my opinion but I am happy to listen to them.

On that we should all agree.

Youth was/is one option; yes there were others, just not viable ones. Pray tell then, if you know, what were the options? Let me guess.... 1) A mix of youth and experience. Ermm, isn't that what we have? It might be heavier on the youth than the experience, but Wooton, Perry, John, Svensson are no spring chickens (so you could argue that, when fit, we have a experienced spine. 2) 11 Old lags / Journeymen. Come ye, come ye, watch the OAPs run around for 90 minutes. Marvel at their injury records, just don't mention the war! The problem with this solution is that we've tried it before (ask George Burley about journeymen when you're at it). Youth will always cost less in wages than an established player and we're out to reduce our debts as much as possible. 3) Sell some players to buy some players. Ask Skacel why he didn't move to Ipswich or Euell why he injured his shoulder (then count how much money we have). 4) (My favorite) Get some investment Find a friendly billionaire (Marc Jackson is working on it) or spend a lifetime reading threads about where Paul Allen's boat is moored. It's fair to say this isn't really an option (but it might be by Friday). 5) Go into administration Return to go, do not collect 200 pounds (instead collect a points deduction). Say hello to Luton as you pass. 6) Keep Pearson See option 1, with more shouting, higher wages (allegedly) and no experience. 7) Errmm that's it. Unless you have any others....

Any football manager manages with what he has. Give JP the chance of Terry and he'd quickly ditch Perry. Fact is JP knew that, when he came in, he'd be managing youth. Every news conference, press release or interview mentioned that. However to suggest he only wanted to play youth is wrong. Even early on he talked about the right mix (see his comments around the signing of Wotton and the return of Svensson). You have an opinion, but it has little to no basis - other than the motivation of having a go at Lowe. Role titles are un-important as long as people understand what jobs need to be done and who is responsible for them. How Lowe and Wilde split their responsibilities is frankly irrelevant in how JP coaches and how the team performs. Unless of course you are suggesting Lowe picks the team (in which case please offer up the evidence).

Yours is a well constructed argument, but I fear you are are either new here or naive. Um Pahars delights in a bit of Lowe bashing and anything tainted by his hands. Watch in awe as he digs out the Poortvliet's CV issue for the nth time! He has strong opinions, as many of us do, but if you expect him to accept that giving youth a chance is the only viable option, I fear you are wasting your time (unless of course it was Crouch's idea). Whilst I don't like to think this of anyone, I suspect that Um and a number of those who rail against Lowe get a degree (albeit a small amount) of satisfaction out of Saint's on pitch difficulties. Just as I suspose I'd gloat if the alternative were true - after all, everyone likes to be proved right. My worry is the debate is an echo of the original Lowe-out one. Want him out, anyone but Lowe/Poortvliet/Telfer/Delap will do. Any counter plan has to be viable and affordable (and when the coffers are bare, that leaves little option but the status quo).

I don't doubt we've a lower attendance than was expected, but I also doubt they planned on an average of 22,000 (afaik we didn't have that last season). That also assumes that all ticket holders pay maximum price. I also doubt we wanted rid of all of the above, 3 out of 5 maybe. So in short, we're in the ****, but I don't agree it is as deep as you say.

Clearly you could, and I am thankful for that. However I am not sure your comment adds a huge amount to the debate either....

The theory sadly only holds if we manage to sell enough of our young playing assets to make a dent on the debt, whilst still having a team that can consolidate and progress. Kind of a "chopping off your leg but leaving enough to still walk on" strategy. Unfortunately (without a sugar daddy) I can't see much alternative.

The same could be said about your reply

We're not going to win the league, we're not going to get to the playoffs, but we might survive. One thing is certain though, without the fans supporting we won't survive and there won't be a Southampton FC in 5 years time. Out of the games I have seen this season (all home, one away) I have seen positive displays (not results) in all but 3 of them (Blackpool and Barnsley: poor; Ipswich mediocre). What though did we expect? Personally I think expectations are too high at the moment (not helped by total football performances against Birmingham and Derby) and need to be re-alligned. We can still survive, then if we sort out our finances, build for the future. But, we need to keep the faith.

I suggest Sunderland the year before. Happy for people to slag off Jan, but only if they have a viable and affordable alternative..... and I thought Lowe was the trigger happy one!!

Precisely my point. A dis-united club, either at board or fan level will struggle to attract investment. All football investment at the moment is 70% profit, 30% ego driven. Any investor (unless it is a true fan and I don't believe they exist with the money required) will want to make (or at very least, not lose) money. Man City are a great bet from this perspective. Loyal fanbase (through think and thin) and Premiership. Saints - dwindling attendance, Championship - less so. Chuck in disunity and there is very little to attract any investor. It's a vicious circle though. Anti-Lowe poster seizes on any miniscule incident and turns it into a holocaust like attrocity, Pro-Lowe poster leaps to an over the top defence perhaps coupeld with a slight on Crouch etc. - with the trolls happily stirring things up in between. The point above about debating the facts, not the personalities is a powerful one. Only when the critcism of Lowe, Crouch or whoever is realistic (blames where there is a viable alternative); appropriate (blames where there is deliberate fault); proportionate (ie. some of Lowe's decisions ultimately contributed to relegation, but it wasn't only his fault); and impersonal (it matters not who Lowe is, it matters what he does), will the circle be broken. Not that this post will make any difference to the vitriol on here, just my thoughts though

Say no to Anti-Lowe.....

I don't doubt Lowe has a big ego, I don't doubt there are better people to do the job. Fact is though he is our only chance. I use the 'only' word deliberately because I can't see an alternative at the moment. Perhaps football attracts a particular breed, but, in my meagre experience, most senior execs are either lucky (in which case they don't last) or devious/politically astute. Couple that with fan vitriol and you've got the ingredients for an egotistical, thick skinned, singleminded chairman (ie. you've got Lowe). Others may pretend to be different, but underneath they are almost all the same. The one exception is Delia (and actually come to think of it she's an evil *****! ).

http://www.sportbox.tv/football/news/story.php?id=270910 Interesting comment from David Sullivan regarding Ashley's attempt to sell Newcastle. Reminds me of how fan vitriol towards Lowe would put off many a chairman. If I had £25m then I'm not sure I'd hand it over for the delight of being called a ******* by a bunch of fan(atic)s everytime the team loses three on a bounce, or critiqued because I may or may not be smiling/smirking whilst watching the team lose.

Incidentally, the original thread that started this was so utterly predictable - I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

It can't be though, can it? I'm sure that Lowe never listens to the fans....

I think people over egg the impact of gate receipts. An extra thousand bums on seats equates to a mere £20K per home game (assuming all adults at £20 each). I'm not claiming that every penny doesn't count, but getting someone significant salaries off the books is more significant (they get paid whether there is a home game or not).

If we can just stop fighting each other and focus on supporting the players on the pitch (rather than the boardroom) then the better we'll all be for it. I'm not asking for happy clappy positivity, just a realisation that, in most cases, people are trying their best - both on the pitch and in the boardroom.

Ps. I suspect when the loan window opens there will be more for people to maon about (I expect Scratchall and Uhaul will be off the books for some period then)

This thread is a joke. Let's us replace Lowe's name with Crouch or Branson or Laurie Mc, and let's see if the same faces post the same crap. If Lowe wasn't directly involved in the signings I am sure the same faces would say 'what are we paying him for'. QED, he (Lowe) cannot win, despite JP saying he's happy with his signings. Saint's sign players by based on requirements and finance - if you think JP has no input into those requirements you are at best naive, at worst a ******.