Long Shot

Fcuhk me, so here's a player who is 24, has already played at 5 clubs under numerous managers/coaches and who has made 20 league appearances in the lower reaches, and just because people doubt he will be our saviour they get branded as being negative.

 

If he was any good he wouldn't be anywhere near us.

 

Get in the real world.

Exactly, some Saints fans prefer life in cloud cuckoo land

I don't want to muddy the waters, but has anyone on here been in a position to ask Mr Askham why he is so supportive of Rupert Lowe............I don't mean a Southern Evening Echo type interview, just a general 'chat' ?

I would love to have 5 mins with Askham because he must now see the fruit of so many of his errors and I'd be dead interested in a) how he justifies them and b) what he intends to do to rememdy them. He was after all, once a fan. The key lies with him but is he man enough to unlock the door?

Ah, some balance to your arguement. It seems that we are speaking from the same book.

 

You have summed up exactly where we are. Any 1, 2 or even all three of them have no room to manouver because of no funding. Decisions are made based on paying the next weeks bills and we have to just grin and bare it.

 

Regardless of the views on Lowe, whether they be out at any cost, out with the right alternative or even keep him, unless the next man comes with a bucket load of money nothing will change.

 

Given the current alternatives, stability is the best option for the boardroom if not the bank account.

There is sense to your argument but for your last sentence. There is no stability in the boardroom - under Lowe's stewardship the boat is sailing straight into the rocks - to do nothing is suicide - there is no grin and bear it alternative.

Long Shot i find myself agreeing with so much of what you post and for what its worth,i want that leech Lowe gone from our club as much,if not more than most people.

But i cant agree with you about wanting Saints to lose.

I know there are many reasons i go to watch Saints and the quality of the football is a long way down on the list,but whatever the reasons,i always want Saints to beat the opposition.

If it gets to the point that i want(rather than expect),Saints to lose,then i will give up going to footy for good.

Saints winning or losing can dictate if i have a good or bad weekend,so despite Lowe still being here.....Come on you Reds.

Yeah I appreciate what you say and as I sit here tonight thinking of tomorrow so much of me wants to beat Wolves (apparently they are really fancying their chances) but to cheer Saints on to win tomorrow is akin to supporting Lowe and that I can't do - sorry. One person has become bigger than the club and that is why I feel the way I do as sad as that is. Appreciate your sentiments and one day supporters like you will be properly valued by this club.

Yes we did sign their goalie I never thought him that good when playing for the Saints he was a cheap replacement for Forsyth who broke his leg.

 

.

I was there too, that will be Dave MacLaren off course - he was actually Wolves player of the game in that 9-3 defeat, believe it or not.

Ok....let's clarify some things here....

 

Take things out of context and no Saints fan "WANTS" Saints to lose.

 

Great...that's something EVERY Saints fan can agree on. Terrific.

 

Now then, add a dose of context and take away HUMAN EMOTION and what are we left with?

 

We are left with the logical scenario that a forthcoming SFC defeat (be it the next one against Wolves or another defeat not so far down the line) COULD be the moment in time that SAVES Saints in the longer term by inducing a regime change for the better.

 

Now, let me pre-empt the usual 'emotive' responses to what I've just said....

 

No, I'm not anti-Lowe per se.

 

No, I don't want Saints to lose any games.

 

Yes, if 'lack of success' over the coming weeks results in a regime change which, according to Long Shot's discussion with someone 'close to the action' , ends up saving the club in the long run then why, oh why, do people see short term pain as fans being dis-loyal?

 

Surely, IF Long Shot (and his contacts) are correct then it's Long Shot and similar minded people that are being 'true' and loyal fans because they can see the 'bigger picture' (a phrase that obviously raises the heckles of those that only see things on a game-by-game basis.)

 

Lastly, why all the vitriol when either side of this argument COULD be right ? Bottom line is no-one knows so perhaps there should be respect for arguments on both sides rather than the emotive "you're no Saint fan" response to people who can see that a negative can be turned into a positive?

 

Anyway, back to the blinkered vitriol....

A sensible and rational post - Trousers, I wish more were like yours. Perhaps my use of the word WANT was wrong.

Why do you not answer my earlier question then we may, just may see this bigger picture !

Quite simply because I am not at liberty to say more. Sorry.

However I would not be saying what I am saying unless I was certain we could replace Lowe with something better.

Believe it or not I threw my weight behind Lowe at the beginning (there was not really much choice) but since I have found out what is going on at SMS and how much he is pulling the manager's strings then I have had enough. And like I said I believe there are, fortunately, people out there who whilst not being big investors would enhance our precarious position.

they can't.

Nick, as you are a man full of wisdom and the club's best ever fan have you ever wondered if there may, just may be a bigger picture? Just asking.

How any so-called Saints fan WANTS us to lose tomorrow is beyond comprehension!

 

Pathetic.

Beyond your comprehension perhaps.

Lots & lots of clammer for Lowe to go ......

 

I have yet to read anyone post a viable alternative. Anyboby ?:smt039

I believe there is a group of familiar names out there willing to step in. Not neccesarily with big bucks but with enough clout to stave off administration and prevent the need to sell players we want to keep in Jan.

Should we survive into Jan (and I note the accounts have yet to be signed off) and Lallana and Co leave you watch the clamour on here then.

Whilst I understand where Long Shot is coming from, I want to give this thread some balance.

 

I also felt disenfranchised by the club, having done 'my bit' in 'asking' Lowe to leave last time, in the manner Mr Blobby87 described above, whilst still giving 100% support to those on the pitch, Lowe then returned.

 

So, what am I to do? I weighed up the situation, and decided that if they can't here my voice, maybe they don't want my money and support, because my money and my support is what they want from me. I want Lowe to go. Having protested, discussed and argued about the issue, Lowe finally went and we paid him well to leave.

 

After Lowe returned and I heard what his intentions were, I almost felt like 'throwing in the towel' like I feel Long Shot has done, but then I thought a bit more about it.

 

Long Shot, it's not (IMO) that you want Saints to lose, you just want the 'regime' to fall so flat, that it 'has' to be acted upon. In your eyes, the best way for this to occur, is that if Saints continue to lose.

 

However, here is my perspective, every game Saints approach, I try and think about how we will win, just like I always did, look at the positives and maybe we will come good and get the momentum, something we've always been looking for. When the results come in and we've lost, I am disappointed but want to look to the next game. But that's just the way it is. Us winning or losing, in itself, will not get rid of Lowe. Sure, success may help keep him in, but losing will not get rid. The only thing that matters in this, is the attendance figures. It is THE only factor that determines whether Lowe is there or not.

 

So, whether we win, lose or draw, I always want us to have played well. And, if we were top of the league right now, I would be happy. It would be bitter sweet, as I wouldn't be there, but I ALWAYS want us to do well. IMO, the best scenario, to get rid of Lowe, would be if we were top of the league by a good margin and we only had the away fans in attendance. (Please note, those that have been harking on about turning up regardless, in this scenario, us not being there had no or the reverse effect, and we were flying high).

 

THE ONLY WAY LOWE WILL GO, IS IF WE DON'T!

 

Come on Saints, beat Wolves. I am also praying that a deflected clearance ends up in the face of Lowe, it's up to you to decide which is more likely?

Sensible reply - thanks.

I know tomorrow if we are hanging onto a 1-0 win half of me will be desperate to win but the other half will see a win as vindicating Lowe and the way he is running the club. I suppose it is the bigger picture I am looking at here ie if a loss is the final nail then hammer it in and let's get the funeral over and done with. I don't want to spend another week lying in a coffin just waiting for someone to hammer that nail in. One step backwards tomorrow might mean a giant step forward at a later date is where I am coming from. Or to use another cliche - sometimes you have to take a little pain to get a gain.

Sorry mate, we don't want Lowe at the club, but NO explanation and NO excuse can justify ANY fan posting that they want us to lose a football match.

 

You have build up a fair amount of respect on here and you lost that in one moment of insanity.

Phil speaking to someone who I respect - it is that desperate. A win tomorrow only perpertrates the problem - it is one result in 123 years, a drop in the ocean. We are weeks away from armigeddon. Desperate times call for desperate measures. Posts like the ones of Scotty Dogs further up just show how people are happy to stick their heads in the sand and hope this is just a horrible dream. It's not and we have got to face reality before it is too late. For too long too many people have turned a blind eye to what is going on off the pitch, often preferring to shoot the messenger.

Well, soon there won't be a pitch. Where will fans turn then? Perhaps I will keep this thread and then send it to all those who have mocked or insulted it when they find they no longer have a club to support.

Saints winning tomorrow will not solve our problems, it will be mere wallpaper over a widening chasm, the fans have got to look past the results but sadly I am losing the faith when I see a serious thread that comes from the heart being treated with disdain. (Not you mate but the likes of Scotty Dog - says it all really.)

This football club is no longer my football club.

It is being run both on and off the pitch by a man who only cares about his ego and I cannot support that.

If Saints win it will be the team he picked and that goes against all the principles I used to hold dear in football.

I had a long chat last night with someone very well-placed to gauge just how serious a position this club is in. Unless Wilde, Askham, Cowen or the other Lowe backers wake up to the damage their leader is doing to the club and "pull the plug" at the next AGM we will go into administration. When that happens Lowe will 100% blame the stay away fans and more than likely move to pick up the remnants for a comparative pittance. He has no feelings towards this club and certainly blames everyone else for our current position.

I really don't think many on here truly appreciate what is going on right now, some even still support Lowe while others think after he has gone there will still be a Southampton FC.

So the only way to save our club is to get the fans and the shareholders to rebel and sadly the only thing that guarantees that is when the team fail badly (remember Branfoot). A loss v Wolves will increase the lilihood of that and so sadly for the first time in nearly half a century of undying loyalty I am hoping for a home defeat. I am sure you will all want to have a pop and some will tell me to eff off and find another club etc etc etc but I just ask you to have a good hard look at what is going on at the club and then ask yourself if you are truly happy. I am not saying it should be taken out on the players or even the manager, it is not their fault but pressure must be put on the man who takes all the major decisions. If he stays we are finished, it is as simple as that.

What was an interesting debate is being ruined by your attempts at mudslinging and compartmentalising. All "Lowe apologists" have exactly the same views is how posts like this come across which is of course ludicrous.

 

And furthermore should the "final reckoning" come nice and soon as you allude to then i'll not be embarassed/crushed because as always i'm a Saints fan first and foremost. And if/when Lowe leaves that will still be the case, Saints will still be here and the club and the club alone will still have my allegiance regardless of who sits in the chairmans seat...

 

There is little self-justification and self-glorification to be had from predicting the future of Saints better than someone else. But trying to understand where we find ourselves at present and come to terms with it without the need to try and belittle your fellow fans (who don't conform to your views) takes a certain level of pragmatism which you seem incapable of...or at least unwilling to try...

 

Change your attitude and perhaps people may be a little more receptive to your views i'd suggest...

But will they - you seem very Hamlet cigarish. With respect may I suggest you change your attitude because

I don't think you realise just how desperate things have become. My attitude is there because as a club we are tetering on the edge and Lowe doesn't care if this club goes into administration. He will simply blame the fans. So rather than have a go at my attitude take a good hard look at our future (if there is one) and then, with respect get real. Fans like Beckster and you are one big reason why we are where we are.

What a load of tosh!!!

 

Please explain how a) Why you feel I am a Lowe apologist, b) why I am to blame for where we are?

 

As for self glorification and self justification this is something that cannot be said of those with an anti Lowe agenda of course!

Sigh,

a) Because you always seem to stick up for Lowe using worn out excuses. b) and while you and your cohorts do so we will never move on - you perpetrate the myth, you prolong the disease, you nurture the unsustainable, you manipulate propaganda in favour of the fraud, in short your prop up the corrupt, undenying man that is Mr Lowe esq.

You can't help it. I assume.

He has you under a spell. Is it politics - yes probably. Is it sex - I doubt it? Is it a fear of being proved totally 100% wrong - Yes.

Whilst people like you demand medals just for being there on Saturday you remind me of the men going over the top in the First World War knowing that they were being lead by donkeys, but hey that doesn't matter because we are real soldiers/fans. Please pause a moment and question what your great mesiah has done for SFC. Taken the crowds down to less than were at the low days in football at the Dell ie sub 15,000. Divided the fans like it would have been impossibe to conceive. And yet you are still in denial, still peddling the broken dream that this man is the right man to lead us?

Come on Beckster - the quicker you and your dwindling band of Japanese soldiers escape the Philipine jungle the better. The man has to go, you know it in your heart of hearts - give up the fight and accept you got it wrong.

Kind Regards

Long Shot

That's a first for you, you usually just make the situations fit your agenda.

And you don't of course.

Like I said last night it is because of fans like you that we are where we are.

The "Lowe apologists" will have much to answer for come the final reckoning which by all accounts (now theres a word to strike fear into Wilde's heart) is not far off.

I believe Um Pahars's agenda to be, ultimately for the greater good of the club, yours, like Lowe's, is driven by no more than self-justification and self-glorification.

Lowe will stay unless someone starts buying shares -however we do

Or those who already have shares see sense and vote against him, come the eagerly awaited, but not yet announced AGM.

Makes sense not to play him against Wovles and hopefully he will be ready for Reading to replace Pearce.

A ring rusty Svensson gingerly feeling his way back into shape v Reading? Oh my God!

Here we go again!!

 

Redknapp only had a contract until the end of the season in the PL to be re-evaluated then.

 

I have never seen the interview with Clifford so can not comment, but why would Clifford be privvy to such information when he had nothing to do with the first team and secondly was only here for a short period?

 

If Lowe did ask Harry to play the youngsters then I am sure he did not mean en mass! This is typical of Redknapp never accepts he is wrong at anything and will not listen to new ideas proved by his comments regarding SCW and Lowe. Had he of drip fed the better players into the side or used them as impact players rather than just put out a side full of them with no preparation (Like Mansfield) then maybe we would have had a better chance to develop them with decent senior pros around them.

 

As for no money he madea bid of £1.8m for Morrison which was turned down, and Lowe has said himself that money is available, and Harry said that he wanted the right player at the right price etc. He was also given significant funding the year we were relegated, bringing in Redknapp, Bernard, Quashie, Davenport and Camara so I estimate around £5m plus wages.

 

So Harry had the means but did not have the motivation. He talked our players down every week to the media and looked totally disinterested by February.

 

For that alone I condemn the guy for what he did to us. As far as everything else goes, he has left clubs potless when he has gone, Bournemouth, West Ham, and now Portsmouth, I owuld not be surprised if the police eventually find something to nail him with as there were huge rumours about his departure from West Ham.

 

He has been very lucky at Spurs just by telling players that they are good!! Why could he not do it here?

 

I don't like him but wish him no ill.

Sorry this is a blinkered opinion. Had Lowe treated Redknapp with just a modicum of respect then we might, just might have flourished. As it was with Lowe's antipathy to Redknapp (don't forget he had already interviewed him for the job once before when Gray ultimately got the nod) and his inbred dislike of "****ney geezers" it was never ever gonna work and HR realised that within 48 hours of arriving. You can spout your 1.8m for Morrison argument until you are blue in your proverbial but the fact remains. The sooner your type of Lowe apologists get real the sooner this club will start to climb of its knees.

Oh and what was the score again tonight?

"And no I don't work for the echo or in journalism!" I think we can tell that from your perception of a sports journalist's role.

 

"Adam Leitch is a sports journalist, not an investigative journalist trying to dig up as much dirt as he can so that he can offer sensationalist headlines."

 

As beat reporter, it is a sport's journalist's role to cover all aspects of the club's activities, both on and off the field, and not only because the two are inextricably linked.

 

It's not a question of digging up dirt. Any journalist worth his salt will want to break the stories on the important issues which affect the club.

 

At the heart of this, is the issue of where a sports reporter's role begins or ends.

 

What is a sports journalist? It may sound like an exercise in semantics, but is he a journalist who just writes about sport, or is he a journalist who ALSO writes about sport?

 

How many of the sports journalists at Heysel, Hillsborough or Bradford put their pens down as events unfolded and said: "I'm not writing anything on this, because it's nothing directly to do with the match," and leave the press box?

 

Probably none, because they are journalists, first and foremost, and as a journalist your duty to your readers and your personal desire is to tell the tale.

 

Now, some papers will try and 'protect' their beat reporter by getting guys from the news desk to cover the off-field activities. The rationale behind this is that they can somehow try and persuade the club that it wasn't our football man that uncovered the financial irregularities, so don't take it out on him by banning him from the ground.

 

It hardly ever works.

 

So, has a deal been done, or is the Echo in the club's pocket?

 

To some extent, the local paper is always in the club's pocket. Its coverage is at the behest and whim and mercy of the club.

 

In the UK, all papers have always operated from the overriding fear of having their privileges withdrawn.

 

That's partly down to self-interest and lack of collectivism in the UK.

 

If one paper is banned by a club because of its stance or something it has written, the others rub their hands and immediately try and take advantage.

 

In the States, the media takes a wider view and looks at a bigger picture. An attack on one paper is viewed as an attack on ALL the media, an undermining of their rights and privileges, and even an assault on their right of freedom of speech as set down in the Constitution.

 

Consequently all the media organisations would unite in their condemnation of the club, and it would not be a case of the club banning one paper, but of the club risking a media blackout!!

 

Freedom of Speech and an assumption of a right to know is also probably more ingrained in the American public than the UK. In the UK, fans expect reporters to be fellow supporters.

 

You only have to look at the Echo website for proof of this. How often is a reporter who has tried to tell it as it is slammed for being negative and failing to get behind the team?

 

Unfortunately, all this makes for is a weak and compliant media. Football and clubs in the UK know that banning one paper will not produce the sort of collective outrage and response they would suffer across the pond.

 

Because of that, Football and clubs know they hold the aces, and control the media agenda.

 

The product of that? Football and clubs basically take the p*ss out of the media in the UK. No access to players, no one-on-one interviews. The only comments from managers or players come from tame, insipid controlled press conferences, presided over by a club (or FA, in the case of England) press flunky who stares daggers at the assembled reporters, fields the questions and bats away any potentially controversial or dangerous ones.

 

It is standard practice in the States in all the major sports - NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL - that pre-game, the media is given access to players at the training camp, and post-game they are allowed into the locker rooms (or dressing rooms) 15 minutes after the end of the match, once the coach has done his debrief.

 

You can really imagine Sir Alex Ferguson letting the media into Man Utd's dressing room, can't you?

 

No you can't because he has never been asked, and nobody would dare ask him now.

 

The Premier League perpetuates this soft-pedalling with its woolly requirement that all clubs to make one MEMBER OF THE COACHING STAFF and two players available for post-match interviews.

 

That allows Fergie to wriggle out of talking to the BBC (only the UK's biggest broadcaster!) while the farce conducted in the tunnel of the presentation of the MoM award and other TV flash interviews serve duty as the post-match player interviews. Written media rarely if ever gain access to players, club press officers tell newspaper reporters: "Get your quotes off the tv."

 

The fear of having even the lip service that passes for access removed is the overriding one in the UK media, and now dictates everything. The failure to take a collective stance when it should have, means the UK now has the football media it deserves.

 

Insipid, compliant and weak-kneed. No wonder Premiership clubs are owned by some of the biggest crooks on the planet. No wonder managers take all sorts of underhand, illegal payments with little fear of impugnity.

 

Back to original question. Is the Echo in the club's pocket?

 

Who knows, but they won't be the only party guilty of that particular crime. Only when they realise they have nothing to lose will they take the gloves off.

 

And when their advertising revenue no longer depends or hinges on their Saints coverage (and that is often a big factor with local papers) will they realise the biggest thing they have to lose is their credibility.

Admiral post - thanks for taking the time!

August 2009! Way too late to ask for as a Christmas present. Can't wait though, should be a great read. I hope he writes it himself rather than get a "ghost writer".

 

The chapter about Glenda should be very interesting. And suitably vitriolic I hope.

I hear Graham Hiley is the ghost writer.

I've always felt he's a good manager and still do. I was hoping he got the England job ahead of Capello (for positive reasons rather than anti-Pompey reasons.)

 

But, of course, such rational thought won't go down too well on here....

With you 100% on this - sure he's a wide boy but he is a clever operator and as shrewd as it gets. A nice bloke too - approachable and not up his own backside.

Had he been given the right backing (and I don't mean financial neccesarily) he would have done a good job for us.

source - Bassett - has said that it didn't influence manager and that was accepted and that he was happy to work in that regime -more than happy -applied for the job after seeing how lowe was. storm in tea cup.

and yes read my posts.

Nick, please don't take this the wrong way and I mean no offence but you strike me as being the sort of bloke that if you caught Lowe in bed with your wife you would doff your hat and say "how was that for your, Sir?"

Probably completely out of order but you do seem to go a long way out to defend a bloke who is not worth defending.

This guy is trying to do a job. Do you really reckon if he asks searching questions of Lowe that he would get a response? Get in the real world. The guy probably has a mortgage to pay like everyone else and therefore prefers not being controversial if that is what his bosses want from him. Its called self preservation and I am sure Saints do not represent his or societies only interest locally either.

Of course you are right but the world is/was full of journalists who were prepared to print and be damned. The Echo is now a worthless rag and from your post it sounds like you too have given up the ghost - which is a shame.

I think that a little harsh on Adam - he is just a young lad who is no match for Lowe and, even if he was, would his sycophantic bosses back him? People like Ian Murray and Simon Carter are only in it for their own ends and have no vestige of journalistic traditions, certainly as far as Southampton FC are concerned anyway. Everything is so cosy - even the the bitter Lawrie Mac's column is a bastion of blandness. Our club is dying and LM prattles on about Jock Stein and Matt Busby. Come on big man, get stuck in and tell the fans the truth - if you have the cojones? The guy hates Lowe but says nothing controversial. Is that down to the Echo or LM? I know one thing - if we were in Manchester now the local paper would be in uproar at Bassett's revelations but..............

So Adam - if by chance you read this thread - how about an interview with Lowe and ask him to answer Bassett's allegations? Do you have the cojones?