Roman

Or… Supporting Southampton is a psychological condition associated with agoraphobia. In the Dell, this was no problem, as we were all sandwiched in like happy sardines, even for the crappiest fixture. And when SMS opened, we were still fine, because we were in the Prem and the relatively palatial seat next to us was taken.. As soon as we were relegated though, A few empty seats started to appear. One of the loudest, but at the time indecipherable chants from the Northam was: ‘ooh, empty air, scary as ****, I’m leaving.’ The emptier the stadium became over the years, the more the agoraphobes ran screaming out of the turnstiles (And you thought it was the football? Wrong.) Southampton fans also contain a higher than usual number of professional advisors. So during the annual visit from David Beckham, for example, he would be given detailed advice on bedroom strategy vis-à-vis Posh. This advice could be offered confidentially because Becks was so close. At SMS, the helpful advice to opposing players had to be shouted, thus preaching doctor/patient confidentiality - hence it has declined precipitately. Finally, and most damningly, moving to SMS caused Le Tiss to retire. He knew that at the Dell, if someone had the temerity to tackle him during a spot of energy-saving ball-juggling, Benali would be along within a few minutes to launch said tackler into the crowd. Since the fans were so close to the pitch, there was always a cushion of about a dozen hairy-arsed fat blokes to land on. But as soon as Le Tiss saw SMS, he knew Franny couldn’t kick the extra 10 metres to the fat-bloke cushion without limbs being misplaced. So in the interests of safety, Le Tiss retired. Our decline in attendance is thus explained by the absence of agoraphobes, sex therapists and tethered bands of fat blokes waiting for people to land on them. All true. I would have added the bit about the duck-hunting Hockey-Mom Chairman who took us over and relegated us twice - but that would have been just unbelievable.

Hence my reference to a chainsaw, Um. Wasn't suggesting that Mr B came in and said: Lowe: you've made a dog's breakfast. I'm taking over and shipping out Stern.' I'd imagine it to be more along the lines of: 'dog's breakfast, etc. But it's got to stop. Cut your costs NOW, at any cost...' Which means no more loans, no more surprise signings like Schneiderlin Homes, Forecast, Gasmi, Pulis. In other words, no more 'Lowe revolution'. Just slash and burn. In that sense, and imo, Lowe is no longer the master of his collapsing universe.

Maybe no surprises but I still find it pretty extraordinary. Here's a theory that won't be too popular. It wasn't Lowe's decision either. It was Mr Barclay, in the boardroom, with a chainsaw.

Ah. Okay, sorry, Toomer, and sorry to hear that. Get well soon.

You should meet hypochondriac.

But - again! - the overdraft has gone UP, not down under Lowe. I wouldn't be surprised if Lowe weren't under pressure from Barclays to sell both - or whoever CAN be sold to bring the overdraft down. Lowe can't make the figures balance because the faster he flogs off the players that would keep us in the CCC, the faster is the exodus from the turnstiles. The vanishing fans are, as I've said elsewhere, the football equivalent of a run on the bank, and I don't think any other club in our division has suffered such a catastrophic decline in attendance. When you factor in the sharp fall last year, and the decline the year before that, there are almost 10,000 missing fans. In other words, it' a vicious circle. The faster Lowe cuts, the more the fans desert the club - therefore the more pressure he's under to make yet bigger cuts...etc.

Would you like to define 'now' - because 'loans' to Barclays, in the form of the overdraft, have actually gone up, not down.

Right, but apart from that he's hardly Henry V at Agincourt, is he? In any case, memorable quotes are hard to come by because he seems to have said so little over the years.

Interesting. No hint of the betrayal about to unfold. The Wilde/Lowe 'takeover' feels just as much a coup as the executives' hugely damaging power grab - and seems to be driving the club over the very same cliff the meeting was evidently called to avoid.

Benny Hill. With Michael Caine as Wilde saying: "You were only supposed to blow the bloody doors off."

I’ve no idea what’s in the Runymede minutes. I would, though, be curious to know if they shed any light on these questions to Wilde. What were his reasons for the alliance with Lowe? Could it ONLY have been about money? Did he know the extent of Lowe’s ‘revolution’ before allying with him to oust Leon? Specifically, did he know of Lowe’s intention to sack Nigel Pearson? Did he know of Lowe’s intention to appoint the Dutch duo? Did he know of Lowe’s plans to farm out our entire forward line? Was he made aware of any intention by Lowe to sell or loan out at the first opportunity: Euell, Skacel, John, Rasiak, Saganowski, Davies and Davis (and possibly Surman as well) – ie about two-thirds of the first team? Was Wilde aware of any business plan to back up this so-called ‘revolution’? Did it depend on a minimum ‘break-even’ home gate? And if so, what was it? Was he a party to the rubbishing of Leon Crouch, a subtly nasty campaign to paint Leon as a business incompetent? And finally, how in god’s good name can he possibly justify loudly and very publicly championing himself as the ‘man-of-the-fans’ in order to relieve of us of Lowe, only to sneak back into the boardroom with Lowe, his sworn enemy, at his side – all the time maintaining a stony, sullen silence? This is a silence that Wilde has kept now for six long months. Time to speak up. Be honest. Come clean. Wilde, you owe it to the only people now who can keep this club afloat – the fans. But of course you won’t say a word, will you?

Yep, it brightens my day to see them flying. Still, we've unearthed our own Phil Brown in Nigel Pearson and... ...the rest is not history.

If he manages to do to Spurs what he did to us, I'll be happy. A partnership of Levy and Redknapp seems as bizarrely unworkable as Lowe and Redknapp. But as Karl Marx once said (about the football-chairman-like Napoleon III), those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it.

There is one man/woman who can oust Lowe in the near future: the bank manager. And I don't think it's beyond the realms of possibility. Lowe's 'revolution' may have looked like a hell of a gamble at the beginning of the season, but now, in the midst of an economic tsunami, it just seems reckless beyond belief. The twin prongs of swingeing cuts to running costs (jettisoning experienced and proven players) and buying (at considerable and baffling cost) 'potential' have BOTH failed. He hasn't been able to cut anywhere near enough to bring a ballooning overdraft under control, despite the lasting damage the cuts have already done; and his gamble on unproven young players has run expensively into the sand. All of which has created the football equivalent of a run on the bank: fans have stopped going to games. Barclays will no doubt be asking themselves to what extent they can continue to bail out a small football club haemorrhaging money, talent AND support. Administration is not an attractive answer to a bank wanting to get its money back. So the bank may insist on changes to the way the club is run that could effectively draw an end to Lowe's revolution - and, I can only hope, to Lowe himself.

Which reminds me...Mods, where's scooby's column then?

I don't think Daren's ever stated his ambition as to be greater than someone who parted the waters - but maybe what he's asking for at this club is just as hard.

Which reminds me... Any attempt to force the mods on a messageboard to disclose the identity of posters being targeted in this way can be countered in the process of 'discovery' - a legally binding process which precedes pretty much any court action, and which enables a defendant to demand similar or equal disclosure from the plaintiff. So any attempt to manipulate a messageboard by, say, orchestrating a PR campaign using the cloak of poster anonymity would have to be fully revealed. There are huge penalties - it would be contempt of court, an imprisonable offence - for dodging this. Who knows what might tumble out of the woodwork?

The biggest asset among the senior players right now is Davis. They wouldn't, would they?

Just a question: has there been a single case of a football supporters' message board member being SUCCESSFULLY sued? I'd suggest that the THREAT of a lawsuit at SW is simply designed to intimidate back. Bet the case is never pursued. In any case, I think the danger can be overstated. Pretty much everything I read on here I think would pass, in context, as fair comment. Lowe may have succeeded in a case against Martin Samuel (for reasons that I have to say still escape me), but it's hard to see how the same thing said on here would have the same result. First of all would be hugely damaging to the club's relations with its supporters - at a time when it needs them more than ever. Second, you have to consider what counts as fair comment - which would be different for a passionate supporter than say a national newspaper reporter. If that weren't the case, think how much money referees or managers or chairmen could make by taking out individual libel lawsuits against every fan who hurled abuse at them during a game.

Also yes - UNLESS someone can offer a single reason to believe the numbers can be made to add up. I don't think I've read anything here or elsewhere that suggests that the damaging cutbacks by Lowe/Wilde are actually anywhere near enough. Reducing operating costs to the point where the overdraft stops ballooning seems well beyond even the most enthusiastic of corporate slash-and-burners. It's a bit like reducing a matter of life and death to choosing your method of execution. (well not exactly like that...)

So Long Shot's real name is Shirley. Thanks. Mystery solved.

Seconded. The elephant in the room with all this crap, of course, is that Obama has the temerity to be black - so of course he's untrustworthy, a terrorist, a 'muslim in disguise', etc, etc. In a British context, we'd see this kind of garbage spilling out from the BNP or worse. The fact that it comes from a mainstream political party in the US is a source of national shame. Interesting article on this today, by the New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/22/opinion/22dowd.html?th&emc=th

For once I agree with you Nick. I can't for the life of me work this one out. What's the point, other than the fairly obvious petty score-settling? And since LS assumes the moral high ground, does the alleged victim of this know and consent to the fact that he's being discussed on a public forum? I would have thought there were far larger issues to do with Wilde's fitness to be Chairman, which I'd assumed this thread would be about. Never mind. There'll be another one along soon...

I sort of agree, but it's written by Peter Morgan, whose original play was nothing short of brilliant - and surprisingly cinematic. It must have been the easiest pitch in recent Hollywood history. All Howard had to do was turn up. At least he had the good sense to keep the West End/Broadway leads, Michael Sheen and Frank Langella. And although these things are hardly reliable, the trailer's terrific too.

The only good thing ever to come out of Great Yarmouth.