Wes Tender

Had a good laugh at this, but then realised the fatal flaw. There are no taxi drivers in this area who support the Skates, so it would be impossible for any of them to drive an Arabian gentleman to Skatesville by mistake. Far more likely that the passenger would have asked to have been taken to Skatesville and the cunning Saints supporting taxi driver would have taken him to St Mary's instead. So it obviously never happened. ;-)

Southampton has many advantages over Portsmouth. When considering Portsmouth, that is a bit of a ****hole, whose only saving grace is Southsea and some interest around the harbour and docks, like Gunwharf Quay. We have a proper University and a glorified Tech College. Portsmouth has only the glorified Tech College turned into a Uni and the other Tech College that has remained as such. We have a better shopping centre and High Street, with lovely parks adjacent to it. Our common is vastly superior to theirs, being an area of natural habitat, woodlands, open spaces, lakes, etc. They have just the open grassed space and that it at Southsea anyway. We are the number one passenger liner port in Britain; they are a little ferry port. Their port is in decline because so is the Navy, so we are feeding them the surplus business from the liners, as crumbs from our table. We have one of the best preserved medieval walls in the country. We have the Internationally renowned boat show. We have an international airport. We had Ocean Village and Hythe marina long before they had anything comparable and admittedly ours need updating, but have the potential to be better than theirs, especially as we have land to be developed at Woolston and along the river towards Northam bridge, whereas they little else they can develop. On our doorstep, we have the New Forest, the yachting havens of the Hamble, Beaulieu, Lymington. We got the Ikea, not them. Agreed that there is considerable additional potential for improvements to Ocean Village and other waterside areas, an Ice rink and other projects, but we are better placed geographically than they are and ought to be able to take advantage of that to have a brighter future. Their Spinnaker Tower is titchy. I've been up the CN Tower, the Niagara Tower and the Space Needle, so The Spinnaker isn't that impressive apart from its position with nothing too tall around it. Perhaps we ought to have one that dwarfs theirs, or maybe an arch spanning Southampton Water.

The Barcelona victory is a golden opportunity to make fun of all the plastics in the area that support them. All one has to do, is record the Queen/Freddy Mercury version of the song of that name on a portable CD and when a Man Ure fan is within hearing range, press the play button. The last time that we had such potential for sport against them locally was after the match when we beat them as the Dell when they wore the invisible grey strip. I had such fun for weeks afterwards, bumping into any wearing that strip and apologising that I had not seen them. I also had a wry smile, listening to the news that 50,000 United fans were making their way home after the match. Yeah, I thought; home to Margate, Tunbridge Wells, Yeovil, Llandudno, Benidorm, Majorca, etc.

WA2 expressed an opinion, which he is perfectly entitled to do. He said that in his opinion, Wotte was not cut out for English lower league football. By asking whether WA2 had ever seen him manage a lower league side, you only provide the very ammunition that shoots your argument in the foot. The very reason that Wotte is probably not up to it, is precisely that he has nil experience of actually any division in British football at any level apart from his few months in charge of us. He has few contacts to identity which players might suit us, knows little of what is required in the way of tactics and strategy to get us promoted and did not even have the ability to keep us up. So who is the tosser here?

I'll not argue everything that you've written in response, as I'm not net savvy enough to do multiple quotes and frankly I can't be arsed anyway. But I'll respond to this bit above, as it is essentially the nub of the matter. Firstly, as far as I'm aware, it is impossible to have an affect before the cause. If I'm wrong, perhaps you would kindly give me an anecdotal example to illustrate the point. In your comment that the numbers at the start of the season were down on last year's, I had covered that by saying that some was as a result of Lowe and Wilde's return, some because of the dismissal of Pearson, economic factors, pricing, playing the kids, etc. So there was already a cause that pre-dated the effect, not the other way about. Also, as has been argued many times before, it was not a financial necessity to farm out all three of the main strikers; we could have kept at least one and rationalised the cost by more prudent outlay on other purchases and loans. Neither was it an imperative to play only the kids, only to have brought in the inexperienced Double Dutch, only to play one up front, etc. It is clearly the case that these were the causes of our predicament and the effect was certainly the relegation and probably also the resultant administration. As for saying that Lowe only did what any other businessman would have done, that is plainly absurd. Even he had other options, different perspectives and emphasis that he could have applied. But then, his record is plain to see over a period in excess of a decade and he made some mistakes and errors of judgement even when things were relatively OK and he wasn't so forced into a corner by financial pressures. Did he do only what other businessmen would have done then? So your contention that anybody who could not read between the lines was blinded by their hatred of Lowe, holds no water. It is patently clear that things could have been done differently even within the financial straitjacket and yet a different approach might have produced better results on the pitch, which in return would have resulted in better attendances and therefore more revenue, thus less financial pressure. All cause and effect, not effect and cause.

Ah, but I dont think that Misguided had started a thread on it before...

If we get a new owner and come through this thing, then I'll be returning with STs. If Lowe ever gets his feet under the table again, I'm off until he goes again. It really is that simple. Misguided and Nineteen can gnash their teeth all they like against the stayaways, puff their chests out and claim superfan status for themselves if they wish. But in any other commercial relationship between a provider of goods or services, if the customer continues to patronise a provider of shoddy and overpriced goods of inferior quality, then they are a total mug. That is the misplaced loyalty towards our club that the board have played on, but they overstepped the mark and did not treat us with respect. I'm really surprised that somebody like GM who runs his own business does not understand the basic principles of customer service and the right the customer has to stop patronising those establishments where he feels that he is not valued and respected. I must say that he reminds me a bit of Basil Fawlty in that respect.

Surely you have enough intelligence to realise that the circumstances of our downfall is all cause and effect. You put it all down to the pig-headedness and unrealistic expectations of our supporters, but that is a ridiculous thing to say. That is effect and one has to ask what the cause was. The answer is obvious. Those 5000 fans who you say stayed away did it for good reason. Some reasons that immediately spring to mind are the return of Lowe and the Quisling, the dismissal of Pearson, the introduction of incompetant managers to replace him, the playing of the youngsters whilst farming out the best strikers, the price of tickets to watch the youngsters, the number of matches lost at home are examples. Many forecasted that these ridiculous measures would end in our relegation, administration, or both. If it had not occurred to Lowe that his return in tandem with the hugely discredited Wilde and the introduction of his bizarre experiment would have no impact on the attendances, then he has been naive in the extreme. If he knew that his re-appearance in control would have this effect, then his pig-headiness is proved. Which was it, Nineteen? Anyway, you persist in blaming everything on the fans, the customers of the business. The product is crap, but the customers are to blame for not buying it! As for your assertion that Crouch could have kept us afloat with the money that he has put in since, how would that have come about? Should Crouch have offered to assist just to prop up Lowe's discredited regime? Was Lowe just too arrogant and proud to have even gone cap in hand to Crouch and asked him? Who knows? But placing any sort of blame on Crouch for not funding our shortfall earlier is pretty disingenous in light of the history between him and Lowe. Had Lowe proposed that all three major shareholders worked together at the start of the season, kept on Pearson and allowed him to pick the team within the financial restraints that we had, all this could have been avoided.

The one hope is that the people who caused all that division these past 6 years are now consigned to the dustbin of history. Because of where we now find ourselves as a result, it is to be hoped that most of us have had a reality check that predisposes us to set our expectations to realistic levels for the future.

You really cannot tolerate that Crouch's appointee managed to keep us up and then managed to get Leicester promoted as Champions several points ahead of the second team. Even harder for you to stomach that he did it with a balanced team containing many youngsters and that they played attractive football in the process. Contrast that to the dismal failure produced by Lowe's two appointees who managed to win only four home matches all season thus reducing the numbers in the stadium and consequently the revenue, with the resultant relegation and administration. If only we had a RSM here this past season to instill some discipline, fitness and moral fibre into our kids. If only we had faith that our players with their knuckles higher off the ground would be half as effective in the third division as Leicester will be in the second division. Of course, all Leicester have to do next season is to finish up higher than one off the bottom to prove that they are better than we were this season, rendering totally spurious your contention that they somehow managed to be promoted as champions as some kind of knuckle dragging team. Many expressed opinions that there was a possibility at the start of last season that Pearson would pass us going up as we went down and so it has proven. As I expect that you might have been one of those expecting great things from the revolutionary experiment with total football, your opinions as to what constitutes an effective style of play in any division is totally and utterly risible.

It's more a case of Daren throwing stones and Nineteen throwing marshmallows back.

Just what happened when we had Pearson here, eh? Only here for a short time and as Lowe wasn't satisfied because he hadn't appointed him, so he went and chose somebody worse. I'll look forward to you digging through the archives and posting your response at that time, along the lines of your current post. Or is it OK when Lowe makes managerial changes, but nobody else is allowed to without getting the flak?

No. You misunderstood. They keep calling to say that they want to see the back of you.

Kindly explain why people would veto the appointment of Hoddle for their own selfish and vindictive reasons? I am at a loss to understand your reasoning. There cannot be any selfish motive unless there was personal gain and I struggle to see how any ordinary fan could have gained anything personal whether Hoddle was appointed or not appointed. Vindictive? Most didn't want him because he had shown a lack of loyalty to the club and felt that he did not deserve to be given a second chance. Are people not entitled to hold their own personal convictions about whether they want one manager rather than another without being accused of being vindictive towards any that they do not want? One would have to infer from such a stance that the holder of those viewpoints was a bit strange, but your obsession towards Hoddle proves that anyway.

We've all heard rumours of where Kevin Phillip's wife likes it.

Yes, I also recall John stating quite clearly that on a matter of principle he would cease to attend any home games while Lowe remained in charge of the club. He wrote a lengthy explanation as to why he made that stand and then defended it from attack from others such as you. So John made that decision on the basis that Lowe had got us relegated and John did not want to provide him with any support from his pockets. Fair enough IMO. So what would you say if Lowe were to return now, buying the club for a pittance, or as part of a consortium that would install him as chairman again? I don't need to ask what you'd do; you'd carry on attending. But if others decided that they'd had enough of the sod and boycotted his return, presumably you'd still adopt your stance that as fans they had some sort of duty to pay their hard-earned dosh into the club's coffers regardless. On that basis, it is entirely pointless arguing a matter of principle with you, as you do not understand the concept in this context. If a large proportion of the fan base would boycott a third coming of the arrogant tosspot who has destroyed our club, then John Smith merely had the foresight to see where his second coming would lead and had had enough of him a season earlier than most of the rest of us.

So what has transpired over the course of history, is that the escape goat, the one that survived, has in current idiom, become the one that is punished for the wrongs of others. In other words, the exact opposite of what it should be.

I wholeheartedly agree with your thoughts on the above and there are many who have a strong feeling that had Pearson remained, then he would have achieved better results than both Poortvliet and Wotte, under similar financial restraints. The better results would have meant higher attendances and therefore survival in this division and probably consequently escape from administration. So how do you square that with this post, bearing in mind that you therefore would reduce Lowe's share of the blame to under 30%, when he was the one directly responsible for dismissing Pearson for what since appears to be petty and vindictive reasons?

I thought they were all hard cases over at Skatesville and here we have one who likes a good blub at "It's a wonderful life" But I must also confess to being dewey eyed after watching that film of a Christmas. One of the best films ever made.

Provided that any new owners do not include Lowe or the Quisling, I am entirely happy to rally to the cause, buy 2 STs and give them a reasonable period of time in which to show us what they can do for us. The first priority is to save the club from extinction, for which they will have my gratitude. Taking things on from then, at least it makes it a possibility that further down the line, others might be inclined to invest in us or take us over once we have proven to be a going concern with prospects.

And Lowe will also hold his hands up and apologise at the same time. Simultaneoulsy, an entire squadron of pigs will cross the sky.

Could it not be that the angry responses directed at those perceived to be pro-Lowe, are mainly because Lowe was the main architect of our current dire circumstances. It is only natural that those who love the club will feel antagonistic towards anybody who they believe did great harm to it and therefore by extension to those who attempt to defend them. In 19's case, he is rather like a fish out of water at the moment, as he has always been Lowe's champion and indeed Crouch's detractor. It must be extremely irksome for him to be reminded that Lowe's bizarre experiment was predicted to fail from day one by many and that has come to pass. Also to see that Crouch has dipped his hand in his pocket to pay the players' wages, an act that is helping to keep our heads above water in the short term. It must be painful for 19 to be reminded that he has been so completely wrong.

The Southampton figures were distorted by Lowe's wage, whilst Norwich's was reduced by Delia's.

Well, as you cannot show figures to demonstrate the proportions of fans that fit into each of these categories, then it rather renders any comparison between our take-up and theirs, doesn't it? Therefore, until such times as you furnish a detailed split, most on here will be able to take it that a large proportion of their sales are inevitably to those either under 21, or over 60, attracted by the sort of price deals that we have failed to offer.

Hopes that 19 Canteen will now have done his check on why Norwich have such a high take up on STs because their pricing policy is correct. But I won't hold my breath that the penny will drop that our management ought to be blamed for getting it wrong...