Professor

Lets hope the crowd give the ex-saints a decent welcome. Not only to show we are a sporting crowd, but to avoid giving them any incentive to stuff abuse back down the throats of those who give it.

To suggest I proposed this indicates that either you didn't read the post properly or you deliberately chose to misinterpret it. Every professional club has a chairman of the board, or an owner and they can all 'do the job', but some do it better than others. SFC does not currently have anyone queuing up to take over the running of the club, so if the current board members walked away, just who do you think would step into the role? It is possible, of course, that Leon Crouch, or Mary Corbett, or anyone else with a shareholding might take the chairman's job, or maybe they could find another Ken Dulieu figure, but if you, Mike, are proposing the 'anyone but Lowe' approach, I can only say it is simple lunacy. Hopefully that is not what you are saying. This does not mean that there should never be a change, but as I have consistently said in all these debates, CHANGE NEEDS TO BE FOR THE BETTER, NOT FOR THE WORSE. I really don't care who runs this club as long as that person is competent with adequate experience and contacts in football. I don't see how anyone could look at the last 3/4 months and accuse Lowe and Wilde of being incompetent. When a better option is on the table, then I'm sure shareholders and fans will support it but until then fans just need the current board to get on with the job and so far, things look a lot better than this time last year. Enjoy the game tomorrow - I will.

I always thought Micky Adams was good, but never at the heights of some others, Kevin Keegan, for example, was in a different class!

Agreed, and we do know that JP and MW saw him play pre-season and their judgement could be more reliable than some of us, despite the fact that we are all qualified football fans. My reservations were based on what Stoke fans were saying on their website but maybe they are only as qualified as the rest of us. I appreciate the Welsh under-21 is probably a bit less competitive than the England equivalent, but Pulis would not have been picked for being a bad player. A free transfer sounds good business as it doesn't need much of a fee to sell at a profit! Now he's a Saint, the very best of good luck to him.

To be replaced by who? Anyone? No one? A fans committee on a rota basis? Fact is, this sort of 'wish' is just a fantasy, as were the 'billionaire' rumours that were foisted on us over the past two years. We have what we have got, we should be glad its better than what we had before and leave the future to take care of itself.

No information, but I did see a comment about Rudi that he was not keen to move to Ipswich as playing in the second tier of English football would not enhance his chances of an international comeback, so he was looking for a continental club. Playing for Saints reserves is even worse for him, so surely his agent will have some options for him.

Have just had a look at some comments from Stoke fans and they don't give Ant Pulis much of a reference, so added to his injured foot, it does seem odd that JP should be interested. I'm inclined to believe he will be coming only when I see it.

Could the club start a new category of membership for 'Trolls' some of whom would be pro-Lowe Trolls and some anti-Lowe trolls and some neutral Trolls. Maybe there could be a pro and anti register on a seperate website. Possibilities abound.

I really don't want to be plugging a player I know nothing about and am only countering some of the scepticism. Sins of the father comes to mind, and the fee, or discount, might not be as an alternative to money in the bank, as the payment for Davies is probably staged.

But I suspect that JP/MW have more information available to them than even the most knowledgeable fan. What would be a shame would be if a player is brought in who gets a bad reception from the crowd, based only on lack of knowledge. We don't know yet that the story from Stoke is true, or if Pulis would be 'one for the future' rather than a first team regular, so firm opinions are hard to take at present unless you are very sure of your ground.

Despite all the scepticism about Antony Pulis, I'd tend to back JP and MW if in their judgement he is worth £100K, especially as it would be a discount on the reputed £1.3m fee for Davies, rather than an outlay.

Mods, can't help wondering if Darren's reply to Sundance would have been more appropriate by private message, as might Sundance's post. Demary is entitled to raise the issue of what is appropriate on the forum, but there are two sides to the discussion and those of us on here have only heard one side of it, and not the club's, so we are hardly in a position to judge. As a journalist, Darren does have means of putting matters in the public domain that most of us do not have, but is this really an appropriate matter for a fan's forum?

I dispute absolutely, that being opposed to anti-Lowe rhetoric and actions, is the same as being 'pro-Lowe'. It is probably true that one attitude does encourage response from the other, but a bit like John Cleese in the Faulty Towers episode on The Germans and the war, its not always clear who started it!

Fair enough, I should not have referred to "the realists", but should have qualified that as "some 'realists' ". The people I was referring to were those who did link their comments directly to Lowe/Wilde decisions or who were also posting other negative posts and insults. Quite right, that was not everyone who wondered if the scale of change could work, or wondered if the player changes were all going to be in one direction. I would still say that pessimism is not realism, but most football fans are pessimists at some time, me included.

Its flattering that you go back to read my posts, but feel free, none of us get royalties.....but the point you have missed, accidentally perhaps, is that it is the anti-Lowe lobby who are obsessed with Lowe. People who have been attacking every decision taken by the club, just because of who is on the board. People saying they refuse to watch the team they claim to support because of who is on the board. It is not Lowe I am concerned about at all, only the potential damage to the club from negative campaigning. I would have taken the same view if there had been a march on the SMS to get rid of Leon Crouch, who also did his best as he saw it, although it wasn't good enough. Ho hum, I'm bored with this myself now zzzzzzzz.

A lot of local councils and pubs have stuck with the 12 noon opening on Sundays, even though since 2005, the law has allowed earlier opening. Chances are some will open on Sunday morning, but isn't the KO at 4.00pm? Midday opening probably gives enough time for a small sherry before the game. More of a worry is this Saturday at the SMS. With a 12.45pm KO, what sort of atmosphere will there be with the crowd still sober?

It would have run out before then if there had not been a whole set of major decisions in the close season, that have brought in income and reduced the outgoings, including the players' wages bill. Since the club's finances are now being managed responsibly, what is the purpose of such a pointless negative comment? All the evidence shows that the budget, as projected over the season, allows for new spending by the removal of previous spending commitments. An unknown factor is how gate income will compare against the projection by January, and another is whether the team will be in a position to compete for the play-offs. Seems reasonable to assume that fresh decisions will be taken then, based on the facts as they then are. If Saints are being successful by then, I hope it doesn't spoil some people's miserable Christmas!

I think people might be referring to posts in August which were almost all negative ones. Posts predicting relegation, despite the evidence of squad re-building seem to have dried up. Posts predicting that the club would not survive the season, have also stopped, but possibly that was due to mistaking budgetary and financial control as meaning that the club had no money, a fundamental error. Its refreshing now to see the more positive approach, but which should not prevent criticism when results go against us.

Its not quite fair to say we had mediocre players, as even in the relegation season we had Neimi, Lundkavam, Phillips, Beattie, and Crouch, all held in high regard, as well as a cameo from Jamie Redknapp. But except for the few rich clubs, the price of playing in the Premiership tends to be losing more games than you win, and struggling to stay there. The high profile competition does bring in the crowds but the ironic thing is that for six or seven clubs every year, if not more, the experience is not very enjoyable. And the desperation to stay there does put massive pressure on managers, few of whom stay in their jobs for more than a year or two. There are exceptions, but even Chelsea have had a surprising turnover of managers. Every year, some people give up watching their team every game, or even at all, and thats up to them, but its not a 'boycott', even though some individuals might use that term to justify their decision to themselves. A few people might try telling others to stay away to deliberately harm the club but that just won't happen. Each person makes up their own mind for their own reasons, not because of what someone else tells them to do. Success of the team is usually the biggest factor in drawing people through the gate, but there is an interesting new factor cropping up in the debates recently, which is the attractiveness of the football the team are playing.

IF the Saints do well this season, by which I mean generally being in the top half of the table, the credit should go to all concerned. Lowe has undoubtedly played a major role in creating the current playing conditions, but if success comes this will have been due to a whole range of other factors, other people and even chance. Nothing in football is certain and nothing is ever down to just one person. But Lowe has been the target of abuse by a small group of the usual suspects over almost every the decision taken since May, and as the more dire of the horrors predicted are already looking to be unfounded, its reasonable to begin talking about 'vindication', but this should not mean he gets all the credit. But its also a reminder, that the simplistic approach of giving responsibility to one person was just as wrong when Lowe was blamed for all the club's ills in the past.

I wasn't at Goodison, but I had been at The Dell regularly all through the season. I was aware Ted Bates had left McMenemy with the club in what seemed a secure position, but instead of strengthening a leaky defence LM splashed all the cash on Osgood. I think it was faith in knowing that Bates was still there as general manager, and that if he thought MacMenemy was worth perservering with, then you backed his judgement. It turned out OK, but only with hindsight - something that Saints fans have a huge store of! Returning to the thread, I'm not even sure if Lowe can ever be 'vindicated' as the decisions of club chairmen always carry a risk. Ambramovich thought Shevchenko was a cert, but in hindsight the decision was bad - but he gets away with it because his money compensates for the loss. No chairman can make a decision that is certain to be right, so if it turns out to be right, there has to an element of luck. The same is true if a decision that is made in good faith, turns out to be wrong. However, there will be no pity from the average fan if things do go wrong, as the fan ultimately has the benefit of hindsight.

What a on earth is behind such a post? Not only unpleasant, but also inaccurate. The club could have continued playing Euell and Skacel, or could have renegotiated with some of the released players, but clearly the coach knows who has the capabilities for his playing system, or he believes that his current first choice players are better. Neither is the club simply playing its reserves. It has promoted players who were ready for the first team but has also brought in a string of signings - Perry, Schneiderlin, Holmes, Forecast, Wotton, Cork, Pekhart. The club is not without money, it is simply working to a budget, and a tight budget, but the evidence shows that this does not preclude spending what it can afford. It will be able to afford more as it earns gate money. Wishing that people would not go to matches is as good as wishing the club to fold, which is hardly the attitude of a Saints fan.

There are 5 teams on 6 points, and they won't all win on Saturday. A win against Blackpool means that 7th place is a fair bet at 5pm on Saturday.

Financially its better to go as far in the competition, and have as many extra games, as possible. No replays, so home ties seem best.