Verbal

Well, the Lowe years might have made it appear as though all the fans who detested the idiocies of that time shared a common interest. But there always were a whole raft of agendas (for want of a better word) lurking beneath the surface. I think that some - even, or perhaps especially, those who drew direct fire from the Great Leader - saw themselves as able to exercise more influence somehow in PLCWorld. Going to shareholder meetings, Trust meetings, or whatever must have given the sensation (if not the reality) of being an integral part of the whole thing. For many of the rest of us, the difference between ownership by a private individual and being shackled to a PLC is seen exactly the other way around. Things may go pear-shaped with the ML - who knows? But right now, we sure as hell prefer it to the parade of pygmies who lucked out with their share certificates and then lorded over the club from the boardroom as the whole shebang sank into near-oblivion. For a terrifying demonstration of monomaniacal pursuit under the 'shareholder democracy' of the PLC (actually as democratic as trade union block voting), just reflect on the year that's just been. It was so unspeakably awful that I don't think any of us has really come to terms with it. And in years to come, we'll look back on it with growing amazement that such a thing could possibly have happened. Now we're beyond that, I get the sense that some of the old warriors feel a little becalmed. I'm not talking about FF. Specifically.

Calm down!

Agreed, ESB - which makes FF's high-handed and pompous response all the more surprising. And thanks, Clapham - as ever, a clear and helpful post.

And the rest - not blessed with the x-ray vision of ITKness - said they don't know.

Who knows - it may even have worked to our advantage. The figure paid by Liebherr is undisclosed, but could well have been less than what Pinnacle had offered. At the time of the Pinnacle collapse, Fry was on record saying the club was within days of becoming extinct. Even with others in the wings, it could well have put the Liebherr in a stronger negotiating position. More funds for investment in the team? And we still don't know the whole truth behind the Pinnacle debacle. I recall reading Lynam saying something about a backer getting cold feet at the last minute. He could have meant the hapless Fialka, but I somehow doubt it. Someone else was surely in the shadows. In any case, even if Liebherr had taken over earlier, the extent of reorganisation necessary at the club, after all the years during which it was allowed to rot, is so extensive it would have taken up most of pre-season (and more) anyway. I'm still optimistic that the Pinnacle delay was little more than a blip and that we finally start heading back upwards.

I must have missed this. I can't remember a single post or thread decrying the idea of getting in good-quality free signings. As an alternative to pitching the kids in each week, I'm sure a few experienced free signings would have been welcomed especially after the Jan window. But they just weren't made, so how could anyone have been 'slaughtered' for it? There's an issue about the quality and experience of the few freebies that were signed, like Molyneux and World Class Ryan Smith. But has anyone's view changed about those two?

I can't see the problem. Swansea got out of this division with an entire squad costing under £1m. And AP may have a transfer budget rolled over more than one season. So it would hardly be surprising if he were planning to step up spending as we (hopefully) progress toward the CCC.

Well, maybe it's not so bad if the PR effort is directed at the media and corporate clients and not at the fans. Given our recent disastrous history, perhaps the club's first PR statement could be that they regard the fans, the fans' forums, etc., as off-limits to "Square 1".

I kind of expected it would get to this. But, 19, you'll have to carefully explain to your lawyer friend the details of the abuse you heaped on Daren and Wes, (admittedly as your alter ego Sundance Beast), otherwise he might think you're an innocent being torn apart by the internet wolves. Which you're not, obviously. But again, it would be nice if people would stop harping on about whatever confidence was betrayed. It's pretty disgusting really.

Well, only up to a point, Lord Copper. Personal attacks are certainly wrong, and it's uncomfortable reading. Daren's and Um's references to 19's mental health issues (whatever they might be) is not playing fair. I also recall Sundance Beast's vicious personal attacks on both Daren and Wes Tender - or, to be more precise, attacks on their families. And for 19C to pretend that he's not SB is untruthful, clearly. However, this really would be a dull place if we didn't argue our positions in a vigorous way. I find this thread, for example, illuminating, in the sense that it's flushed out the thinness of the attacks on McMenemy. We can, and should, have the most head-crashing rows - but there's no need to resort to ad hominem attacks

That's because you're on your own.

I’m sorry 19, but the logic of your post is again utterly self-defeating. If the basis of your strongly expressed animosity towards LM is merely some unspecified ‘alleged rumours’ for which there is, ‘in your opinion’, ‘little evidence’, what the hell is your point? How can you possibly be so angry about something that someone, by your own admission, may or may not have done? And having dragged Lundekvam into your self-created cesspit of immorality-beyond-redemption, you seem to be gearing up to pull MLT in as well. I think the reason people on here get so angry with you right now is that just at the point when we seem to have consigned the pygmies to history, you seem to want to continue fighting the old battles in some sort of vain hope that some old wounds can be re-opened. Please: get over it and lighten up!

This is what I don’t get, 19. As you’ve clearly demonstrated, you have no direct experience or any real knowledge of McMenemy at all. I’m sure some people on here think you do, because of all the pointless speculation as to whether you’re Marland or Lowe or whomever. But you’re not. So what on earth is your animosity actually based on? Are you really so intensely committed to your position, based on the odd rumour you’re heard third-hand about LM’s conduct during Alan Ball’s spell as manager or during the Crouch interregnum? And are you incapable of learning from, say, David in Sweden’s or Vectis’s posts? Because you sure as hell need an education in the history of this club; your ignorance (or let’s call it a series of blind spots, to be a little kinder) has been unwittingly paraded often enough, I would have thought, for you to have a long, hard look at yourself. But no, the best you can do is keep up this bizarre and quite unconvincing vendetta. Now that your one and only hero has left the club in ruins, and those ruins are in the process of being rebuilt by an owner in whom everyone has the highest hopes, isn’t it time for rethink? Or a change of identity?

Never did understand the suggestion that something underhand had happened with the 'missing millions'. The money was squandered in plain sight in serial acts of utter uselessness and unbridled hubris. Now that he has his apology from the Guardian, Lowe could conceivably be writing his own mea culpa to the club and its fans for his considerable part in its near destruction. If he is (which admittedly is a bit of a long shot), someone really should tell him not to bother. No one gives a damn. Today felt like the day we finally left the pygmies behind.

This from the poster who supports a team whose stripes are the wrong way round and make their players look fat. (And supporters for that matter - trust me, I know: I live dangerously close to that odd little shed opposite the beeb) Perhaps Lita might have taken a slight hint after being released by a slowly fading CCC club for the dizzying fee of £0. Anyway, you may be right - but don't come on here ruining our dreams.

I hope I don't regret saying this, but there were a brief few weeks last season when the Gillett/Schneiderlin partnership looked like it had real promise - and Schneiderlin strikes me as a player who needs a hustling CM sidekick. Even in the bouncy-castle world of League 1, he may yet be a revelation.

All of this reminds me a little bit of the reaction from Sunderland fans when we signed Kelvin. The vitriol was unbelievable - and KD was indeed a bit of a liability in a season where he was obviously trying to recover his self-esteem, let alone his form. But now look where he is - our first signing of the season was, by miles, our player of last season. Sometimes the talent and the situation just don't 'fit'. Charlton were and continue to be a club in freefall. The ONLY way they can hit bottom now is when (not if) they are forced into administration. Pardew appeared there as things were becoming desperate. No wonder it went pear-shaped I even wonder how Pardew might have fared here had he been appointed during the duck-fiddling regime. Not even remotely as well, I bet, as he can at a club reborn, that seems determined to support an experienced football manager - and a club that is debt-free and setting its sights on a place two floors up. Who knows - Pardew may be Burley Mark II, although I doubt he'd be as tactically befuddling. But Kelvin can certainly give Pardew chapter and verse on how to turn around any adverse fan reaction. If Pardew gives us a football team that - for the first time in years - is organised, fit and tough-minded, then he'd have silenced the 'dementers'. We've lacked these utterly basic qualities for so long that I think we'd be deliriously happy with just that (and a chance at the play-offs...).

The evil PayPal should have delivered a tenner - fingers crossed...

Correct. 'WTF', the Saintsweb trademark, will be the logo. Lucky player!

I'll bet that we don't re-sign ANY ex-Saints players.

Ever the optimist, perhaps, but that seems like the set-up to a typical Strachan punchline.

Agreed. They're like a couple of Siamese twins joined at the comb-over. They could even share the same sunbed.

God, this feels like ancient history, but... One of the stranger qualities Rupert Lowe managed to convince people he had was that he was in some way prudent. It's a myth. Certainly he was often stingy when it came to managers - a breed he had little time for - spending money in ways they saw fit. But he was utterly profligate in pursuit of his hubristic agenda. Hundreds of thousands spent on hiring SCW - an individual whose career since the Rugby World Cup has consisted of a succession of bad-tempered failures. And yet Lowe spent heavily in his belief that SCW was the future, and that conventional ways of managing football clubs weren't. He also had a well-established reputation for massively inflating the playing squad - quantity over quality. But the worst example of his hopeless profligacy was what happened last season, when he was disastrously lavish in trying on SCW mark II - the 'Dutch revolution'. So I don't really accept the premise of the OP. If Lowe had been prudent at any number of key moments in the last six years - and had any skills whatsoever in leading a united board - we wouldn't have been driven onto the rocks in the first place. His useless leadership was the fertile ground that bred the Wilde idiocy, the executive coup, the brief Crouch regime and the ludicrous wage bill. Now back to the real world...(And wouldn't it be the biggest insult we could muster to his lordship never to mention his ludicrous, hopeless name ever again?)

Tell me, 19, what first attracted you to a thread entitled 'Pearson to come back'? And would you please take a mobile-phone snap of the look on your face if he's appointed? Just as a kind of public service, you understand. I will now go in search of your sensible posts. I may be some time.