Wes Tender

It doesn't seem to occur to you and many others that the financial position is one set of circumstances and that the team and management are another. It doesn't occur either that one can have a tightly run ship financially, but that if the team and manager are crap, the financial prudence is a total irrelevance. What is required to achieve any level of success, is an astute balance between the two things; to get the best available manager within those financial restraints, expecting that he in turn will be savvy enough to get in the best players also within budget and employ the best tactical nous to use them to best effect. Accepting that while Lowe was away we gambled on spending too much to get us back up, does not excuse for one second what Lowe did once he returned with the aid of the Quisling. Putting aside the unpopularity that the two of them had among the fan base and the fact that inevitably some stayed away because of it, Lowe failed spectacularly to abide with those tenets that I have listed as the way to succeed on a tight budget. We already had a decent manager capable of chosing decent inexpensive players and utilising them to the best advantage, but Lowe dispensed with his services and appointed two foreigners with zero experience and a level of incompetance that has been proven by results (or lack of them) this season. Regarding the players, yes, they were cheap, as they were the previous season's youth team, the players with experience and prowess having been loaned out, sold or let go. Many of us knew it was a recipe for disaster at the start of the season, so it is useless you and 19 Canteen and a few others singing from Lowe's song sheet, blaming the two years that he wasn't in control. Poor managers and players not up to it means defeats, which means lower attendances, means increased financial pressure, equals eventual administration and relegation. The financial position inherited by Lowe, in part of course caused by him on relegation, did not mean that the path taken by him this season was the only one. If he or anybody else believes that, they are seriously deluded.

I was also genuinely upset about todays performance and would also be eminently capable of strong fighting talk about the remaining games too if I thought that I wouldn't be wasting my breath. The similarity between the two of us continues, as he is no more capable of playing decent football than I am. We don't need players who can talk a good game. We need some with ability too, regrettably something that Paul Wotton doesn't have in any abundance. The same goes for Smith and the managerial equivalent of them both is Wotte.

I just thought that I ought to tell you how it is with me, Nineteen. Whether I'm in any way representative of a grouping of other fans and how big that group might be, is open to conjecture. Although there are undoubtedly many who have stayed away because the football has been crap and the value for money lacking, I boycotted mainly as a matter of principle against Lowe and the Quisling, but also predicted from the start that the mad experiment with the two Dutch dunces would end in disaster. I am also here to tell you, that if Lowe or the Quisling have any position of power in my club from now on, I will not be attending until they have gone for good. If that comes to pass, then you can blame me and others like me all you like, but the message to them both should be clear. You have ruined our club and a dose of the clap is more welcome than you two are. If you do have any real affection for the club, then you will go away and never darken our doorstep again. Do us all a favour and go and take control of Pompey.

Just how crap are we? And what is it with that formation? Two players ought not to be on that pitch for a start; Smith and Wotton. I only saw about 5 minutes of Smith's play since he arrived here that looked even half decent and that was about a couple of months back. Anyway, what is that tosser Wotte doing playing him on the right? As for Wotton, what on earth does he add to the team? Yet again, we are pathetic at defending set pieces, How come they get to score from two corners where our marking is so useless? Thank God that we haven't conceded any more this past 15 minutes or so and actually look as if we could have had some chances ourselves. We really do need to come out and throw caution to the wind and get numbers forward and push them back and perhaps they might wobble a little if we pull one back. But unfortunately I do not have faith in Wotte to either inspire this team, or to be tactically cute enough to make the difference.

It is a reporter's quote of what the Luton director said. As such, if it is not what he said, that director can take legal action against the reporter for misrepresentation or demand that the reporter retracts his statement at least. You might be so cynical as to believe that because it was a reporter quoting what that director said that therefore it might not be true, but likewise you might as well not trust what you see on the TV news or in any other form of media either, as those are also stories by reporters. Also, you do your case no favours having to resort to name calling at those who do not agree with you.

I appreciate your point, Nineteen, but still don't think that it holds water. Thankfully we have some people associated with the club who are well respected as some of the best legal brains in the country. Probably the best known and most respected is a certain Mr Salz. If he was completely confident that we had a fairly watertight case, perhaps there might be one or more of our wealthier supporters who would be prepared to cover our legal costs.

Welcome to the forum, Dave. It's nice to have another contributor on here who has some professional knowlege of how the stock market works. Its a very intricate subject and most on here, me included, do not have enough know how to make a reasoned judgement on such matters. Good to hear opinions on the quality of response from those few who do claim some expertise.

That really was a bad example citing Charlton in an attempt to prove your point. The whole point of Phil's post was pre the departure of Lowe and the Quisling not post. Anyway, I believe that you have taken it all out of context. If you read what Phil said and then it was phrased "the majority of fans who stayed away did it because, blah,blah, then I don't think that there is much to dispute about his comments.

http://www.punchaceleb.com

Am I being thick here, or something? A Luton director says the club...... Was this Luton director talking about his golf club or Stringfellows or anybody else?

"Luton director Stephen Browne admits the club are prepared to take legal action against the Football League if they fail to dock points from Southampton". Doesn't it? This seems to be a fairly conclusive mention of taking legal action.

I'm delighted that stevegrant has proven to my satisfaction for one that Luton's situation is totally different from ours, especially if it was the club with the debt and not the holding company. It is inherent upon the FA to close this loophole so that no other club can take advantage of it, but as far as I'm aware, there can be no retrospective action taken against those who have exploited a loophole. Undoubtedly Luton's bluster will attempt to apply pressure on the FA to punish us as they were punished, but if Steve is correct, then there is no way that any legal action will prevail. On the other hand, we might well have good grounds for legal as far as I can see if we were to be deducted points.

HaHaHa, Trousers. Why the picture of Roland Rat? Is it because he was the only Rat ever to save a sinking ship? And is our dear ole Rupes the one that might have saved this one by jumping ship, but by the device of the administration of the PLC and not the club, left the ship's rudder headed away from the rocks and towards calmer waters?

He says that they had a holding company too, but was their holding company a PLC and does that make a difference?

Just reported in thr last half hour:- Luton director Stephen Browne admits the club are prepared to take legal action against the Football League if they fail to dock points from Southampton. The Saints' future has been thrown into doubt recently as their parent company, Southampton Leisure Holdings, have gone into administration and they have so far avoided a points deduction. "We don't necessarily know all the ins and outs. It's easy for us to be outraged, but not until we know the facts," Browne told Luton Today. The Hatters were handed a 20-point penalty for a similar offence last season when their holding company Jayten entered administration and Browne is keen for consistency. "The Football League have continually spoken about the integrity of the competition, but if there is some way football clubs can rack up debts and put them in the name of a holding company, who is their 100 per cent owner, and enter insolvency, anything can happen to that company with no result to the football club," he added. "Personally I would be staggered if the Football League turn around and allow this to happen without a deduction."

The darkest hour is just before the dawn.

A nice theory, but probably because the administator is showing good professionalism and keeping things confidential until due diligence has been done to weed out the really serious players.

Maybe there were many like me who caught a whiff of the possibility of Lowe's return, especially in conjunction with the Quisling and wanted to see whether it came to pass before committing to a couple of STs. At the time it seemed unlikely that Lowe would get shot of Pearson, who had a 90% popularity rating with the fans. Lowe would have been on a hiding to nothing keeping him on and if he had visibly falied by the end of say 15 games, he could have fired him and blamed Crouch. Had Pearson been showing signs of success, Lowe could have claimed credit for having faith in him against his better judgement. When Lowe returned and Pearson was dismissed, that justified my wait to get STs and I boycotted them. However, as per the time before when I had done the same thing after relegation, I continued to attend every home match with my son. When it became clear that under Poortvliet we were incapable of producing home wins with the kids and that the quality strikers were loaned out, the time eventually arrived when I thought that enough was enough and I was not going to put any more money into the club while Lowe and the Quisling remained in charge. Seemingly, many others had acted in a similar vein and eventually that shortfall of people through the turnstiles was what did for us. If anybody wants to call me names and suggest that those like me are culpable for our current situation, then go ahead. I don't care a toss, as I am satisfied that had the stupid and bizarre experiment not taken place and we had stayed with Pearson instead of letting petty ego matters interfere with good sense, we might have avoided this situation. Since Lowe has gone, I have been back, made a donation, will renew my STs for next season regardless of which division we are in and generally rejoice that we may just have ridded the club of those charlatans. If any of them come back in charge, all bets are off and I'll not return until they are gone again. Simple really.

joined and sent on to friends...

Ah! So my take on it as a way of raising valuable funds in our of deperate financial crisis is incorrect then? I am obliged to you for opening my eyes. I understand that they might be auctioning off the painting of the train donated by Doncaster. Should attract a lot of anoraks, eh, Nineteen. Quite remarkable that we should both choose the AGM as one of the few bright spots of the season. Mine was the reading out of the anonymous letter that you sent Rupes telling him what a stirling job he was doing.

Nineteen, you're obviously hurting that the charlatans that you admired so much have gone. Who knows, you might even have been one of them yourself, or otherwise an associate or confederate of theirs in some way or other. For myself, I've waited over a decade for the time to come when we would be rid of these people from the old board and the arrivistes who cosied up in bed with them. No doubt you would have been happier had they remained in control. Never mind, there will always be winners and losers in life, but let us hope that whoever takes over the club is somebody that we both can applaud and therefore somebody who can bring unity to the club once again.

I think that the Wikepedia dictionary defines it quite well:- In modern usage, a tyrant carries modern connotations of a harsh and cruel ruler who places his or her own interests or the interests of a small oligarchy over the best interests of the general population which the tyrant governs or controls. However, in the classical sense, the word simply means one who has taken power by their own means as opposed to hereditary or constitutional power (and generally without the modern connotations). This mode of rule is referred to as tyranny. Many individual rulers or government officials are accused of tyranny, with the label almost always a matter of controversy. The word derives from Latin tyrannus meaning "illegitimate ruler", and from a non-IndoEuropean loan word in Greek, τύραννος tyrannos, meaning "sovereign, master", although the latter was not pejorative and applicable to both good and bad leaders alike. One can make various connections regarding the reverse takeover, his titchy 6% shareholding propped up with the support of those like Askham, Richards,etc, his unwillingness to relinquish control even if the wider interests of the club were involved. Also, I can never ever remember any actual tyrant like those you mention admitting that they had ever been wrong, or apologising for any of their actions, a trait that our ex-Chairman also shares with them. As the article concludes, the label is almost always a matter of controversy. But if in the modern idiom it is allowable as a label for Governemtn officials, I don't see why it should not apply here; in my opinion, of course.

The way that you defend the old tyrant is almost heartwarming. Especially as he takes no blame upon his shoulders and has not one ounce of humility in his body, as witnessed his nauseating attempts to whitewash his record of failure here and paint it as some golden era in our history. I notice that you don't dispute my assertions that he knew the price of everything and the value of nothing, that his policy was never mind the quality feel the width, that his public relations record with the club's customers was atrocious, etc. Regarding your other responses, football has ALWAYS been about finance. The economic climate affects all clubs equally in terms of attendances through the turnstiles. No part of the UK is immune. Sensible clubs make offers and incentives to increase turnout, something which this club had not done to any real extent. Those club owners who do not know their way around a football pitch are mostly astute enough to surround themselves with advisors who do know their way around.

A very good point. When some clubs became PLCs, the FL's legal eagles should have spotted this eventuality and acted accordingly. They have been negligent, so why should we be victims of their inneficiency?

Of course he was stupid! He always knew the price of everything and the value of nothing. He often abused the paying customers of the business. He knew his way around the City, but not around a football pitch. His policy was never mind the quality, feel the width. Either his man-management skills were extremely poor, or he was the unluckiest Chairman in football to have gone through so many managers in so short a time. He was prepared to embark on bizarre experiments when nearly everybody predicted their failure. What do you deduce from all that, Sherlock?