trousers

So, in which case, had Poortvliet waited a few hours to see the outcome of Crouch's meeting with Wilde and Lowe he could well still be here? In other words, he incorrectly assumed that Crouch would be successful with his 'new manager' proposal?

Yep, that would fit. Can someone confirm the chronology though? i.e. did Crouch approach Lowe and Wilde about 'changing things' BEFORE it had been decided that Jan would leave (either of his own accord or with some 'help') or was it AFTER the Jan decision?

Lowe: "Look Kim....this remote control is so easy to use I can operate it behind my back. This might be the first game of the season but I can see this robot idea of your working you know. Just make sure your contacts destroy the TSF Database to remove the evidence though"

"Crouch has had an ongoing dialogue with them since October, but the 2-1 home loss to Doncaster forced him to call a meeting between the three largest individual Southampton Leisure Holdings PLC shareholders. “I put my proposals to them but they obviously didn’t accept them because they went and put Mark Wotte in charge," said Crouch." Erm, perhaps I'm reading too much into this (for once) but if Lowe and Wilde didn't accept Crouch's proposals (which included changing the manager) then why didn't Poortvliet stay in place (whether he was pushed or resigned)? Either they accepted Crouch's proposals or they didn't? All seems a tad coincidental that Crouch come up with a plan which involves changing the manager which is turned down by Lowe and Wilde but the manager change then happens anyway.... Lost.

"Crouch has had an ongoing dialogue with them since October, but the 2-1 home loss to Doncaster forced him to call a meeting between the three largest individual Southampton Leisure Holdings PLC shareholders. “I put my proposals to them but they obviously didn’t accept them because they went and put Mark Wotte in charge," said Crouch." Erm, perhaps I'm reading too much into this (for once) but if Lowe and Wilde didn't accept Crouch's proposals (which included changing the manager) then why didn't Poortvliet stay in place (whether he was pushed or resigned)? Either they accepted Crouch's proposals or they didn't? All seems a tad coincidental that Crouch come up with a plan which involves changing the manager which is turned down by Lowe and Wilde but the manager change then happens anyway. Lost.

Get your boots on....you know it makes sense....

I thought he was a footballer? edit: do we pay him on a pro-rata basis if part of his time during the working week is spent on 'other business interests' ?

Indeed. The comparison with SCW is a valid one. Which makes it even stranger that the club chose not to publicise it. Would appear illogical on the surface.

A trip to Jersey between two away games...sensible?

Like it All we need is a fly on the Waals and we'd know what was going on.... (now, that play on words is borderline intelligent, even if I say so myself)

Nail. Head. It's all very simple really.

Are you my wife?

No, hands up - didn;t listen to it....however, I was speaking in general terms about the much upheld view on here that one can somehow divorce support of the 'regime' from support of the 'team'. To me, ignoring the boardroom side of things when said regime is, by seemingly majority consensus, deemed to be harming things on the playing side (indirectly or otherwise) is tantamount to damaging the team (again, by association) Apologies, probably wrong thread to be going into the philosophical argument....

Hmmm....Perhaps we should start a 'Lowe Out' campaign too....? You never know....

http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/RulesAndRegulations/Agents/

No, not everyone. That would be daft. Obviously... Just the important roles will suffice. A quick 3 paragraph OS article about someone responsible for bringing something as inconsequential as players into the club would be a start. Or perhaps the OS should stick to writing reports denying we're buying an oil rig and such like.

..

Did Terry Cooper sit in the front row of the director's box every game and have his name with held from publication on the OS? Apples and apples?

One good thing though....we now have the illusive shot of him at Farnborough....which means we can criticise Rupert's choice of jacket colour all over again! "Small things....."

An "explanation" of sorts Why wait this long to explain the role of someone who seems very pivotal in our player recruitment? And why nothing on the OS if there is nowt to hide? I don't know about other people but I'd quite like to know which people are at the fore front of player recruitment at the time they are engaged rather than 9 months after the event. Call me old fashioned.....

Supporting a 'bad' regime doesn't help the team one jot...IMHO

If any NDA (or other form of contract) says "I shalt not criticise the club when I leave" (or legal-esque words to that effect) then it doesn't really matter who was in charge when he left as the present incumbent could still use it against people if the wording is suitably generic. Why does everyone assume that a comment is anti-Lowe just because Lowe happens to be at the helm?

Hmmm....I wonder if the protest was a factor in their choice of match?

Maybe he's wary of breaking any NDA that he may have signed?

Is that in the Echo? So, if it's all innocent why not tell us about him in July/August last year? Surely if he's been as pivotal to the club's recruitment policy as the above article suggests then it's an important role (whether it's paid or not) and as such why not communicate someone with such an important role to the fans? Either he has an important/respected role or he doesn't? Once again, another situation that, given the information available, doesn't add up. Why, for example, would someone want to work on our behalf for nothing? (note: that is somewhat rhetorical as I can guess the answer)