Gordon Mockles

Yes, history denotes that a fact (although some on here struggle to interpret meanings…) i.e. I think the word I clearly used was “facts”. Assumptions” and “interpretations”, as you well know, have entirely different meanings!

The facts remain!

More than likely! You've gotta chuckle a their bare-faced hypocracy. It's like some comic strip, yet not such fun: Both the main catalysts for our slump yet still pertaining to blame the post grad scientist who walked into the lab & found a disaster - An out of control set of chain reactions, the entire facility disintregating around him & 2 men in white coats *cough* scuttling off into the woods!!

Ahhh, I get it. Fans on the forum air the harsh reality of our demise & lowly *cough* situation & they're negative, not realstic (according to the Lowe munch bunch) yet when the club spell out a negative of our situation, they're realistic! "Standards" & "double" spring to mind for many on the ADMIN INEVITABLE thread (or is Rupert just being "sensible" - depending on your definition of the word!) Using some logic (judged by Lowe's arrogant inability to accept blame & speak sincerely), I'd say he's preparing us for another garage sale come January. Or, he may have broken his silence just to wind us up. You've always gotta take his comments with large handfuls of salt!

"best post I have read on here for years..." yet you've only 4 posts! Hmmmm?!?! Forgive me if I side-step any further comments from you!

In case it had slipped your attention, this thread was about finances, administration and some interesting topics had arisen in the Saints timeline, and the subject moved on to stadia and the ill fated Stoneham project, as well as the Dell, etc. If you don’t understand the relevance of that...well, no comment. Have another pint son! (and treat yourself some peanuts!) If you’ve no interest in that, try posting on one of the many football threads rather than inanely cheering and whooping like some blind-folded, over-enthusiastic puppy in a bonio factory. LOL [sorry to be rude Nick but I do sometimes wonder]

Or incite riots! We got a letter of warning once from our box (in the earlier St Mary's days) when Saints scored against Pompey, and we fired a cork (from a fizzed up bottle of champagne) at the Pompey fans. THEY WENT MENTAL! Clambering over people to get to the lads responsible. Not the most sensible move to make, but blo*dy funny at the time!! :smt076

You reckon? LOL Shame I missed it. My local too. Never say no to a pint and chatting football. What’s this about Dean Gorre’s son too? At United. Does anyone have any more info. on him?! Is Dean Gorre likely to join the coaching staff?! We’d do well to have some back-up and support to Jan in the first team, although isn’t it all one team, with the seamless transition and all that?! Or has that changed? Not sniping as it sounds sarky, sensible enquiry. I’ve not had the chance to meet Jan yet (or Mark) but I’m really liking the way they conduct themselves and their frank, Dutch openness. It’s refreshing after the last joke of a manager we had (full circle in fact, an allegedly alcoholic manager that abused his position and did so much damage, to a committed Dutchman, so eager to succeed in our league that he (allegedly) bought himself out of his old contract and works on extremely limited resources)

I thought they offer reasoned, balanced and objective points. All for the greater good, unless you have other ideas?! Ok, Um (Steve isn't it) does go off on one at times (I can't comment! LOL) and sometimes won't let certain matters go but we all have our viewpoints and stand up for what we believe in. I know I do, probably much to the bewilderment of many! I'd much rather read their comments than the overtly defensive, non-committal fence sitting from many on here. You know the type – They’re happy and they clap, they smile (I hope they don’t wear sandals and socks too! LOL), they sometimes belittle the moaners but offer nothing to the table, merely nodding and agreeing with whatever they’re served , while toasting their marshmallows & keeping their feet warm, whilst St Mary's burns!! Not stereotyping of course! If you're not blinkered and open minded, then you shouldn't let the obligatory moaning that comes with football effect you. After all, look at our past few seasons and league position. That merits some criticism, surely!? There's positive, there's optimistic and there's realistic. Judging by recent (and not so) history, we've ever right to be cynical and question matters. I find it more boring when people blindly hope for the best and sit on their fence. I still go and support the team whenever I can, but I put my view and opinion across. It just differs to yours! It’s all about personal standards. I have higher expectations (in our case [for now], just playing well enough to remain, rebuild and play competitively in this league) than some. Others, evidently, do not. Don’t let that bewilder you. :smt075 ;o)

I wasn't going to engage any of the "support Lowe regardless" comments but Nickh, you're priceless. Are you so far up Lowe's arse you can't hear the people talking? Your views seem so short sighted and entirely one-sided, despite your vain attempts to mildly belittle Lowe and purport to being objective. You are aware of the intricacies, or indeed, main stalling points, that scuppered the Stoneham Project? Read above if not or read Daily Echo archives (or other available literature or government planning archives for a wider picture) Sorry if my riposte seems harsh but come on, be fair. I clearly do not like Lowe but I have posted above without personal feeling, merely concerns for the club back in the time of Stoneham, etc. You need to look and delve a bit further. As I just mentioned, running tracks wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing if cost and ownership were shared (i.e. less burden around our neck, yet we still get to play on the pitch and sit in our seats – who cares how the finances are shared as long as we get to see the football or a quality we deserve). Ideally, we own the stadium, have no track and have no debt. But we don’t live in Pleasantville and just look at our current predicament! Looking at the prospective stadium, the ball was rolling before Lowe arrived at The Dell (although I will not bandwagon and Lowe bash, just for the sake of habit on this forum. Lowe can duly take credit for giving us the stadium. I feel, once he started, he was determined to deliver us a new ground. It is entirely relevant that Southampton County Council played a key part (Obviously) but more so following the collapse of Stoneham. That needs be said if you are to look at ALL the facts. You agreed, SCC are due credit but (and it’s a big BUT(t) and Lowe did deliver but do you not think it odd how no plan was resubmitted on Stoneham following the failed planning application?! It seemed odd that the additional leisure facilities were refused, then the plug was pulled and the club stomped away. Pangs of ego and having to answer to no-one struck me all those years back, and they have a certain resonance now! Do you not agree?

Just a tad arrogant. We'd expect comments like that from our boardroom, but from fans too?! That logic equates to your sweeping thread about the war and how people are cowards for not wanting to be bombed, and how it must be inherent to Southampton people to run and hide, not stand and support in trying times. I think someone has issues with anyone of principal, or just anyone enigmatic, or on a different viewpoint to you. Exactly as I said. I believe the club could (and should) have resubmitted proposals. I felt there was a hint of stubbornness (Whether Lowe or not is open to question, who cares) and a certain degree of ego scuppered matters. After all, a hell of a lot of work (time and money) had been invested by the club. I felt the project was a great proposition (as did certain councillors) but the club seemed to pull out abruptly, like a spoilt child not getting their own way (with the cinema/supermarket add ons). I am not having a personal knock at Lowe. I am pleased he delivered us the stadium but I am being subjective, not merely pragmatic and objective. However, we did seem to just up our train set and stomp away from what was potentially a project/stadium with much more solid foundations than we currently have. As a side thought, even the sharing of the ground with athletics, or other community uses on a green belt heavily reserved for sport, may have helped share the burden of the inevitable overdraft/stadium with additional funding, rather than soley the club. Especially upon the threat of relegation, and the undeniable revenue drop. Still, hindsight and all that…although foresight………………. It’s a good point well put. Some on here can’t accept balanced sense so expect over-zealous, over-defenceless fence sitting and non-committal or rose tinged views. Due to the large plethora of anti-Lowe feeling (some balanced, some wildly blinkered), there is equally a wildly narrow minded faction (mentioning no names but look on this thread! ;o) that defend any stance against the current board, without due diligence or consideration. I won’t get embroiled in any more of that (much like Roman has now had enough posting on matters, it’s rhetorical and dull).

I’ve been reading this thread over the past few days and intended not to comment but I can’t stand it anymore. Up and away – I don’t believe it was quite so cut and dry as Lowe pulling the plug on the Stoneham project. The planning application was refused (after an epic 8 year struggle) and that is not at the fault of Lowe. Many, MANY people were extremely p*ssed off at Eastleigh Borough Council for, what they felt was, stringing the club along (at great expense to SFC.) It culminated in the application refusal and a rather passionate and scathing attack (a half time rant, in length), from Dennis Rolfe at The Dell. He bled red and white that day! I feel, in many ways, Eastleigh Council took the p*ss. I’ve see a lot of planning applications in my job so I hope I can offer the debate something and not bore you senseless. I wasn’t involved with the first stadium application (although I was working alongside the planning supervisor @ WSP – dealing with Cowen – when we designed and built St Mary’s). If memory serves me correct, the stumbling block with the Stoneham Project was the revenue making facilities (cinema and supermarket) that Lowe wanted to piggy back on top of the sports facility (i.e. The Stadium). It was always a sensitive issue as many locals didn’t want an out-of-town football club bring large numbers of football fans to their town (although you wonder what the problem is when you consider the plethora of anti-social housing orders relocated in Eastleigh). I believe the project never truly had the legs but this leisure and shopping addition may have been the straw that broke the camel's back. Maybe the council saw it as excessive business and profit being shoe-horned into the equation. I don’t know if Eastleigh were looking for excuses. I was not at the meetings, nor liaising with councillors, MPs and councils. I have my doubts concerning EBC masquerading for a project they never truly intended to follow through (a hell of a lot of money was involved and wasted on the project). Still, my opinion or cynicism isn't relevant. One important point stood out to me – I believe Saints put all their eggs in one basket with Stoneham and relied on it too much, even when it looked unlikely to proceed. However, I am not knocking Lowe in this respect as there were very limited options (as with most clubs and new grounds in this over-crowded country) and I may well have done the same thing. Still, this is all history. What I take issue with Up and Away is the comment you make about Lowe “pulling the plug because the economics didn’t stand up”. Whilst I agree with the sense in you (and Lowe) dicsussing the economics of the business at the Stoneham facility, in this situation I believe some stubbornness was involved on the club’s part in dealing with the Eastleigh council and the respective councillors, representatives and MPs. Maybe there never was any middle ground but the site at Stoneham was always much preferred to St Mary’s (which has pretty much zero scope to expand – they even had to adopt park and ride schemes and close off roads due to parking/access issues. Far from ideal, I’m sure you agree). Still, I like our ground and we’ve grown into it, but your debate got me thinking. However, one fact remains – With St Mary’s, we did not end up with a much better deal than Stoneham. In no way, shape or form. All our monies were ploughed into Stoneham. St Mary’s was always second choice and, in essence, the site was the proverbial safety net that broke our fall (thanks, for once, to So’ton City Council ). Maybe our inflated parking rates and the soon to be Ikea bottle neck are their way of getting us back! LOL. St Mary’s was always a stadium built very much on the cheap (on the same model as Derby’s ‘Pride Park’) because we had ran out of time, money and options and everyone was justifiably desperate to move from The Dell – the smallest ground in the league (if we’re honest, it had become a bit of an embarrassing tag – still, we can always look down the road to cheer us up!). The move to a larger capacity stadium was essential, due to demand, increased gates receipt to accumulate profit (or not) and the relevant infrastructure. If we were still in the Premiership, it certainly would have offered better takeover options (room for expansion and relevant planning, travel links, parking/access, proximity to airport, etc.) However, relegation and the subsequent financial demise is always a threat. It all depends upon how you manage it (no easy task). In our case, we failed, spectacularly. The rest, as they say, is history. Sorry for the lengthy post but there are some points close to my heart. Let’s all hope we remain in the division and we can eventually build and restructure and SUCCEED. Regardless of personal issues, (God, I have enough of mine with the board) we don’t want to see our beloved club fall apart.

Very interesting but I don't believe you could effectively, and predominantly, master the bulk of each particular skill to a high degree (95-100%). I may be wrong and I do accept that continual absorption of tecniques in a concentrated period could have incredible results but I don't believe you can effectively recreate and assimilate processes (in this case, individual/largely natural football skills) that would be better ingrained at a younger age, when learning is much more natural - mimicked and learnt through exposure; much like child language acquisition. Even at a younger age, the mind may not have the desire and capacity to acquire such intensive and particular skills...I guess that comes down to the coaches and the capacity of the individual. Never the less, an interesting afrticle and a good thread. I was surprised to see Matt and Jan mentioned/shown, as Saints in the training. Sports science and new, innovative tecnhiques are always welcome. Strachan liked the unconventional. As does Lowe (no further comments! LOL)

What PM? Have I been missing out on something?! ;o)

I'd not call that contempt, more taking the p*ss! Tongue in cheek (not in the same way as the Lowe Luvvies mind! LOL) Excuse the typo – brain not in ear. It wasn’t an intentional oxymoron. Clearly meant to say “small minority”…OOPS! I am bored of bleating on the same rhetoric too but, until the Lowe faction see sense and stop talking sh*t, I will endeavour to defend those who are being passed the blame for other's failure. It's pathetic! Regardless, the club will not settle and progress until the current regime are GONE! End of.

Contempot? Priceless! You stand up and defend Lowe regardless. Have you ever considered being objective? Well, the sneering attitude of Rupert doesn’t help. Yes, in Lowe’s first failed tenure many grew sick of his patronizing, arrogant and largely condescending attitude towards the fans (and glee in being in the media spotlight). Many preferred he would shut up. However, the board have gone from one extreme (well, maybe not in Wilde’s case – he’s always cowered in silence) to another and the club now have a media blackout, only releasing inane snippets that most of us had already learned on the grapevine. The new term adopted by the Lowe axis - “the small but vocal minority” suggests a veiled snipe at fans, along with the obligatory jibes at the “previous regime” (In the eyes of Lowe and Wilde, Crouch shoulders the entire blame for their long, continual spiral of failure within SFC. It’s comical). Blaming fans, Blaming Crouch (ok, he made mistakes but not to the extent of Lowe and, more recently, Wilde), Blaming everyone but themselves. What pathetic, deluded and egotistical, Cowardly men. Both spineless and clueless! God help our club. :shock: As Stanley says, the financial report says it all. The few chances Lowe gets, he has his dig. Like on South Today (upon his ill-fated he return to St Mary's). He couldn't help himself by having a snide remark about "the previous regime" - Yep, the one he teamed up with to in order to get back to power with his minimal stake holding!

As I posted the other day, you've got to laugh! The biggest pair of hypocrites ever to set foot inside a football stadium. Absolutely hilarious article. If he believes what he said, then he's more deluded and supid than I thought. Laughable! One matter did stand out to me though, if Wilde (side) stepped down (and hid in cowardly exile!) upon the realisation that his own disasterous 'manifesto' failed on every level, then he must have wanted Crouch to step in so he had a scapegoat to pass on all the blame (i.e. Wilde didn't have the balls to stand up and admit his failure, much like Lowe. They have that much in common). What a pathetic waste of a space, the pair of 'em!

Errrrr, or maybe the "stay away fans" have stronger principals than you. To suggest they don't "give a toss" is both arrogant and narrow minded. They do not like nor support Lowe's regime. The current board also make no effort whatsoever to build bridges. In fact, the opposite. Veiled snipes and blaming the fans for daring to stand up against their risky strategy and hypocritical actions. And it is that very attitude (pig headed arrogance and scorn) of the board that has cemented the resolve of those "stay away fans".

2nd super stupid quote of the week from you. You're on a role!

This article scares me a bit. Was about to post myself but you beat me to it. Ok, it may not effect us but I don’t think I’d be alone in feeling a little bit uneasy (from past history and Lowe’s point blank refusal to listen to any professional opinion regarding his revolutionary ideas!) The Telegraph writes: ‘With English rugby seemingly going backwards, Woodward has been linked with a return to Twickenham. However, Britain's Deputy Chef de Mission in Beijing insists he is still fascinated by football and desperate for another chance.’ "Contrary to what's been said I really enjoyed my time at Southampton and learned a lot," Woodward told the Daily Mail. SCW continues - "But I need to be the manager and I think I will have some offers from the lower divisions. If not, I will take a rugby job." WHAT? Lower divisions…an offer may be forthcoming?! What does he know that we don’t?! An offer – What, from a Division 1 football club? Maybe a young team could be a model, fallen from grace and needing some revolutionary new approach?! (more so than appointing Dutch football men!) Hmmmmmm???? Saints by any chance? Certainly made me wonder! I can’t help but feel cynical about this article. Stranger things have happened under the dubious reign of Rupert ‘Revolutionary’ Lowe.

Great post! I liked the satirical opening, enjoyed the middle & loved the last line. You've a straight, no nonsense approach to your posts & certainly don't suffer fools lightly. Nice one. I like this new & improved Fry chap! ;0) As Stanley said, that statement had Lowe written all over it. The vested snipes a pure give away. What a koont!

Just my gut feeling. Call it instinct. Nothing more than that. I really hope I am wrong. Lowe is so tight yet devisive, he manages to run our club with a meager 6% share holding. Now, Lowe has control because he works for/represents a particular group of shareholders. A group of shareholders with a very chequered history. Draw your own conclusions but I remain sceptical!

Must admit, I was very dubious post Lowe's reaction to us staying up last season and the man is sooooo devisive. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool. Whether it is part of a master plan is too ridiculous to imagine. Rupert certainly likes to use the club as a business playground. He has no intention of putting money in (or it would have happened in our hour of need) but every intention of leeching more money from the club imho. So, picking us up cheaply in administration is a distinct possibility (from Lowe or his cabal) and one I would never overlook, knowing the man's track record. Askham, Lowe...Parasitic vultures who don't like to spend, but hungry to suck money from those less fortunate!

And gullible has been taken out of the dictionary! Do me a favour! Anyone who blames Crouch for Lowe, and more recently, Wilde's disasterous decisions and financial mess that has culminated post relegation is either a.) in the Lowe PR camp with some obscure agenda b.) Completely stupid or c.) Ignorant to the facts (or maybe all 3!!) If cost cutting should have been instigated in July 2007, then surely the blame lie with Lowe and, chiefly, Wilde. Crouch wasn't even Chairman at that time and only stepped in to temporary charge after Wilde's p*ssing about & standing down, eventually leaving the board top heavy with the mutinous execs Wilde appointed (Hone, Oldknow, Dulieu, esq.) It's old news but we all know the dreaded Hone press-gang took the club siege & removed Crouch in July 2007. So, Wilde's self-serving bunch of imbeciles were in charge, dishing out stupid, lucrative contracts to players & allegedly trying to negotiate large renumeration packages for themselves (re: initial takeover talks at the time) so I struggle to understand how Crouch can be blamed for his own controversial removal by a mutinous board appointed by Wilde. Crazy! Crouch's second tenure was again abruptly halted by the EGM (called by Wilde and Lowe) but I am sure Crouch would have not renewed the contracts of a great deal of the players whose contracts were due to expire so Wilde and Lowe can't really claim much credit for this cost saving (as anyone with a brain would have realised the players weren't up to scratch and surplus to requirements), although I am sure they will try. Spin and more spin. The levels of hypocrisy astounds me!

You've got to admire their timing. So transparent! Must admit, thought exactly the same! Coincidental eh? And a veiled dig at the former board in the Echo by Jones and the usual spun ******** (from the coven of b*llsh*tters) blaming Crouch for inheriting Wilde’s and Lowe’s mess and being the principal cause for our demise! Laughable.