Wes Tender

Here is the link that I posted on:- http://www.bournemouth.vitalfootball.co.uk/article.asp?a=151376 The mention of The Echo probably refers to the Bournemouth edition. Vital Football is not exactly the bastion of grammatical prowess, but equally The Echo is just as prone to those sorts of errors too. However, I suspect that in essence the story itself is accurate.

This has just been published:- Championship side Southampton's parent company went into administration recently and that appears to have had a knock on affect, with Southampton FC owing AFC Bournemouth money. The Daily Echo have reported that Southampton are due to pay AFC Bournemouth a figure of around £50,000, however the amount is currently being withheld. The payment is due to the Cherries following former AFC Bournemouth youngster Matt Paterson making his tenth appearance for the Championship side. Paterson left the Cherries for Southampton in 2006 and the £50,000 payment was part of the compensation settlement agreed at the time. The paper has reported that the payment is allegedly being withheld by the Football League, with the Football League refusing to comment on payment details when contacted by the Echo.

Of course it was about a love for Saints and the second paragraph shows that you don't have any grasp on reality. If those people perceived that Lowe was harming the club they loved, then naturally they would campaign to rid the club of him. The ones who are apathetic to a damaging situation are the ones who do not care, not those who are prepared to take action. If you cannot see that the boycott of Lowe and the subsequent action to donate money or suggest iniatives to raise funds are mutually consistent positions now that he has gone, then you show an inability to follow simple thought processes, as illustrated by your Solomon analogy. If you believe that under that analogy Crouch would have remained silent, then it follows that you suggest alternatively that Lowe would have allowed Crouch to have the club for the good of the club which would have died if split between them in accordance with the Solomon analogy. That in itself is flawed, as the club was more likely to prosper under those circumstances. We are in this position precisely because of the petty bickering and egotistical posturing of those who have fought to control us and to suggest that Crouch is more guilty than Lowe in all this is disingenous in the extreme. Try and get a bit more balance and perspective if you wish to quote the wisdom of Solomon.

Are you seriously trying to make a comparison between people feeling a compunction to contribute to Woolworth's staff and our club? You might as well draw a parallel between paying money to your neighbour's family in the same breath as paying to yours in their hour of need. And the analogy about it being like contributing to smokers' ill health is just as stupid too. If half of those extra fans had turned up regularly we might not have been in this mess. Had Lowe and the Quisling not returned, we might not be in this mess. Had Lowe not dismissed Pearson we might not be in this mess. Had we not played the kids and loaned out the experienced players we might not have been in this mess. Is the message gradually sinking in? And just by the way, I did put money into the collection. It was my choice to make. Each to their own.

OK. You did put a at the end. And no hardship having to look at your avatar either

Thanks for the apology. ST boycott as soon as they returned, yes. The match boycott only began at the time of the protest marches. I must confess that it hurt not witnessing the two only other wins since the early season win, so the one yesterday was much sweeter.

Nick, for your information, I had only boycotted the matches for Preston, Cardiff, Derby and QPR. I have attended every other home match this season, which is an attendance record better than many on here. When Lowe was gone, I came back for the Charlton and Palace matches and will also go to the Burnley game too. Your comments about Ronaldo are ridiculous. I will be attending next season complete with 2 STs regardless of whether we are in the third division or not. I didn't even go to the Man United game either, rendering your comment about Ronaldo even more wide of the mark. Regarding Wotton, when you are grinding out results you need good squad players if not stars, but also it is imperative that you have players who can make decent passes to keep possession too. I also note that on a football forum, you have questioned the right of posters to be critical of a player's abilities, or lack of them. I had not mentioned Lowe in this thread, but you sought to bring it up, thus attempting to turn a debate about a player into one about the ex-chairman. If you accept that the reason that we can only afford players of Wotton's calibre because of the boardroon shenanigans, then fair enough.

Nick. I was responding to Swannymere's post, which doesn't hold water for the reasons I gave. You have gone off on a tangent. However, the example that you gave in your first sentence, that there is no difference between a fan boycotting on a matter of principle and another staying away because a steward was rude to them once doesn't hold water either. Of course a matter of principle against the people running an organisation is higher moral ground than reacting to the rudeness of a minion. You might not have noticed, but we have effectively got rid of Askham, unless he returns as part of some consortium. Whether many of the stay aways did so because the football was crap, or because they despised Lowe, although he has gone, the football has not been brilliant since he went until yesterday. Now it might be that some have returned because the club are in deep trouble, but that was also well documented that we needed a certain number of bums on seats all season to break even financially and many felt that they did not feel inclined to attend then. As I say though, the increase in attendances since he went has been irrefutable. It is only the reason for the increase that is debateable, with no really clear evidence supporting any particular position, but certainly the return of some who stayed away because of Lowe is a factor.

He is a player that we brought in because he was not deemed to be good enough for Plymouth to insist on keeping him. A bit the same as other players in our squad, notably Smith, who couldn't even get to stay with Millwall. As for some of those other signings, we wasted money on some others who have made hardly any contribution at all, players like Molyneux, Pulis and Gasmi. In many ways, it is a shame that we have sunk so low that we have to include such as Wotton in the team mainly because of his so-called leadership qualities. He did Ok against Palace, but as I say, had we played a decent footballing side, he would have been shown up for what he is. A winning mentality is no good without the basic skills to ally to it. Personally I'd prefer a player with the skill to keep possession and pass with accuracy. We had several of those until fairly recently, Safri being the last who had skill and an element of leadership and good mentality. Before that, hard to beat Marsden. But Wotton might be more of an asset in the 3rd division if that is where we find ourselves next season.

Your comment just doesn't make sense. You claim that the vocal minority are quite happy to claim that they're staying away because of the board and that it is just an excuse because of where we are in the tables. It is reasonable to assume that the only vocal minority are those that express their opinions on forums like this, or in the Echo. Otherwise, of course, nobody would know their reasons for staying away. So you contend that these people are bothered enough to come on these forums or take the time to write to the Echo just for effect? That they give false reasons for not attending, that they have gained a life outside of football, but are nevertheless prepared to squander time on the internet harping on about the club they used to attend? As I say, it is nonsense. The last couple of home games have shown a significant increase in attendances. There might be other factors involved such as special pricing, or a bank holiday, the credit crunch but the increase has been irrefutable. I know of many local businessmen who were died in the wool Saints supporters, many of whom went to all matches home and away, were members of the corporate schemes, sponsored the club, etc. Many of those had stopped going because in their opinion Lowe had ruined the club and they refused to put their money into his pocket. Whether they have returned I do not know, as they almost certainly don't post on here. But for every poster like me or Roger who has boycotted until recently and has now returned, there is probably another who has not returned because Lowe has made them lose their love o the club and they have found other things to do. but these people are not part of the vocal minority, as their views are only known to a circle of friends and aquaintances.

If Gillett was available, we wouldn't need Wotton. Gillett is superior in every department to Wotton. Palace is probably a team that suits having Wotton playing against them, as they are a hard physical outfit and we needed him to mix it with them. Had our oponents been a decent, talented team playing good football, I suspect that they would have easily found him out.

Yes, of course there are worse people out there. It's just that none of them have been in control of our football club before. If somebody worse than Lowe should takeover we can have a good gripe, but failing that, let's be eternally grateful that we got shot of the worst chairman in the club's history so far, together with all that other dross that brought him here, those who allowed him to return again and others recently associated with us who have generally driven our club this low.

There was a third group, who would normally support the club through thick and thin, but couldn't feel able to coninue that support while Lowe and the Quisling remained in control. Those two have hopefully gone for ever, so those supporters now fall into group 2. With luck, those in group 1 will also now fall into group 2 too, so that we can move forward with unity.

It was an entertaining game and really Palace hardly threatened us at all until the three corners right at the death. The difference between the two teams was largely that we won the majority of the 50/50 balls and looked up for it, which we didn't at the Charlton match. We had some nice flowing moves and some neat passing too, but lacked the impetus to put the ball in the net with a succession of shots made more in hope than expectation. Up until the McGoldrick goal, it looked as if we could dominate that game and still not score even if we had another 90 minutes. But once the goal went in, we both had to ensure that we didn't let that lead slip, but equally Palace had to show a bit more ambition too and left some gaps which we exploited hitting them on the break. Many had called for Scacel to be given a roaming role and he did in fact get forward often and made some really telling passes to feet in the box too. Euell also did a great job of holding the ball and looked solid. I did wonder why he went off. The sustitution of McGoldrick for Liptak was a prudent one to hold onto those vital three points for the dying seconds, which was heart in mouth time as usual with Saints. I don't think that the referee had a very good game, but as the three points are ours for a change, it doesn't really matter. Cardiff had complained at how physical Palace were against them and I expected that they might have tried to bully us too. But it didn't look as if they bullied us; in fact, I think that we generally gave as good as we got. This was only my second win witnessed at St Mary's this season, having missed the other recent ones because of my boycott. What a lovely end to the Easter weekend, the sun shining and a good win. A glimmer of hope still exists, although we have an uphill task ahead of us. But hopefully the confidence gained will give us impetus. We were in the upper Itchen near the Northam corner and I must give a mention about the superbly vocal support up there. It hardly stopped the entire game. Excellent.

Play three CBs and have two wing backs. On the Wolves thread I had suggested Scacel as one and James as the other, but equally that could be Surman if Scacel was to go midfield. So the team would look like this:- ....................................Davies..................................... .............Liptak................Size..............Perry................... James.........McGoldrick......Euell.......Scacel...........Surman.. ...................Saganowski.........B-Wright Phillips.................. Euell to anchor the midfield and go forward to add extra weight to the attack, but also available to fall back and add weight to the centre of defence. McGoldrick to overlap James and Scacel to overlap Surman to give the extra width that we have been lacking, or James and Surman to maraud forward while McGoldrick and Scacel cover behind them.

I couldn't even get two tickets together for the Northam on Saturday morning. They said the corners weren't open and I had to settle for the first block in the Itchen. If at least the Northam Kingland and Northam Itchen corners are open, that would be great.

I was prepared to give Wotte a chance to prove his credentials once Poortvliet was dismissed. At first glance, he seemed to be OK, certainly better than JP and we even had three wins on the trot and it looked as if he was on to something. He even appeared to have listened to widespread opinions that we were better suited as a team with playing a 4-4-2 formation and a mixture of youth and more experienced players. But very strange team choices and some poor substitutions have caused me to revise my opinion of him.

This pretty well sums up where I am on all this. As I said in another thread, the darkest hour is just before dawn.

This infers that Lowe has the nous and the cash to get us up. It is because he had neither that we are in the position that we are. Even if those who take over are more liked than Lowe but don't have the cash, the probability is that they will either have the nous to at least make better footballing decisions than Lowe did, or at least have the humility to consult others with that nous. But somebody more liked than Lowe will attract more support than him, which will mean a better atmosphere at the club and a sense of unity that we have not had these past many years.

Yes. Regrettable that many thought that way, but Lowe and Wilde ought to have realised that it was a distinct possibility before they returned and dismissed a popular manager out of spite, loaned out the team's stars, replaced them with kids and appointed two clueless Dutchmen.

Thanks for demonstrating that although you appear at first sight to be an intelligent and educated person, the fact is that your lack of comprehension of the English language suggests otherwise. It might well be, of course, that having had me on ignore allegedly, you missed some salient points that I had made regarding my position on the boycott. It also seems to have escaped your attention that Lowe is gone, so the reason for my boycott is also gone. Therefore, instead of going shopping with the Missus, I will in fact be watching the team playing football, regardless of which division we find ourselves, complete with my ST. My boycott covered about 4 home matches this season, coinciding with the protest marches. On that basis, I attended more matches than the majority of others this season. That is four home matches missed through boycott in all the time that Lowe has been here and before. Previously, the boycott was purely of the ST and only for two seasons, but not for the home matches. Ironic isn't it, that you could state that the club will be well rid of fans like me, while attempting to blame stay away fans for our predicament. But perhaps that didn't occur to you either.

All in your oh so humble opinion, of course, Misguided. Which are the muppets you refer to from that poll? Those who would boycott or those who would not? I'm suspecting that despite your lack of clarity, that it is the boycotters that you are referring to. There might equally be opinions just as valid that those who are prepared to attend and pay whatever the club choose to charge, regardless of whether it is absolute dross are the muppets. As a more sensible debate, who is to blame if attendances drop because the fans are served up dross? The fans, or the people who are responsible for that overpriced dross?

Do we have a sell-on clause on him? That might be useful in the third division.

I have pledged to renew the STs of me and my son now that Lowe has gone. If he returns in any way, shape or form, or if any of the Charlatans are involved in any way, all bets are off and I will now renew. But apart from that, I will renew, regardless of what division we are in.

It's an interesting exercise from one perspective alone; it is just another example, if indeed one was needed, that Lowe hasn't got a clue about appointing or keeping a decent manager. Also that he does not have the mental capacity to learn from his mistakes, as he had travelled this road before with Gray and Wigley. It also highlights his petty and childish demeanour that he couldn't bear to keep Crouch's man who might have had more success than his chosen two. But the appointment of Poortvliet and Wotte, the loaning out of proven strikers and the playing of the youngsters was a major error of judgement tantamount to gross incompetance and negligence.