Wes Tender

So we're both agreed on where we ought to be be at the end, but just disagree with what happens on the road there. I think that Lowe and Wilde should step down now, in favour of Crouch, who will be the interim chairman until the changes can be made. My thinking on that is purely on grounds that more fans will return to matches under him, not that he is necessarily better qualified to run things. That is a separate debate. If they refuse to step down before the new board of independents is organised, then they ought to at least have Crouch join them in the interim. The first step on that route then, is for Lowe and Wilde to publically announce that they would be willing to step aside from the board to be replaced by an independent board. The other major shareholders, or at least a majority of them, should agree with that plan. Once that step has been taken, then the difficult bit is overcome. It is then a simple matter to advertise the posts on the board through the national press and undoubtedly there will also be free publicity to be had through the sports media too. If you are in broad agreement with the principle of what I propose, are you prepared to join me in gaining support for the idea on here? And then if the support becomes widespread, there will visibly be backing from the fan base so that the board know that this is what most of us want. I must say, that if we can gain momentum for this idea, it will pove that the idea that the club can only be run by the majority shareholding group is complete nonsense. It would be encouraging to know that the majority opinion was that it would be better all round that none of the shareholders had anything to do with the day to day running of the club and that their only influence would be their right to vote at the AGM or EGMs if a majority of them were not happy that the independent board were not running things well.

So, you agree with me that they should all go?

Was this physically or mentally? I think that we should be told, as there is of course a lot of difference.

Yes, it was hilarious that local Southampton Coroner and former FA chairman, together with local solicitor Ian Gordon and Builder Brian Hunt, all formerly board members of Southampton Football Club, together made the following statement:- Brian Hunt, Ian Gordon, Keith Wiseman Statement 5th May 2006 2:00pm Monday 19th June 2006 WE have watched with sadness and dismay the steep decline in the standing and status of the club that we all love during the past few years. We hope and pray that the position will be significantly reversed from the first day of next season. We believe that George Burley can be the man to lead us back to the promised land of the Premiership. Uniquely, we have watched that decline from inside the boardroom. You will not find a single recorded comment from any one of us during these last few disastrous years, not only in the media but even in the private conversations with our many close friends in the city. continued... We have read many letters in the Daily Echo during that period of time critical of Rupert Lowe and asking why we, as honourable men', have not ourselves stepped down. The events of last Thursday, when Rupert took preliminary steps to have us removed from the football club board, have given us the opportunity to speak out to all of those people who care about the club. We have been gifted by the chairman an open goal and we do not intend to miss. The first thing that needs to be understood is that sharing a boardroom with Rupert is something that has to be experienced to be understood. As a result, we have had to consider our position many times during the last two or three years. We have been invited by the chairman to resign on previous occasions and of course that is a traditional route to take for anyone who does not agree with a majority view. We have long recognised that our dissenting voices in the boardroom might one day lead to attempts to remove us, but we have willingly accepted that risk in disagreeing time and time again with a whole raft of key decisions, not only at meetings but on occasions in writing to emphasise the point. It has often been unpleasant and confrontational and a tremendous strain on all of us. Why have we done it? We have done it because we do not believe for one moment that we are in any genuine minority at all. We would be very surprised if we did not have the support of a large percentage of the staff, the business community in the city upon whom the club heavily relies at a corporate level, and most importantly of all, the fans themselves. We of course are all fans, whether inside the boardroom or outside. Article continues, but I quote the relevant bit that has something to do with Lowe's character. Now, you might disparage others who are presumably far better qualified than I suspect you are. Perhaps you might kindly tell us what you do for a living, in order that you might give yourself some credence when it comes to judging others. You ask what my day job is, so if I tell you to back up any weight that my opinion might have, then it is only fair that you tell us what you do. I run my own advertising company. You (mate)?

This proposal is a ludicrous idea, badly thought out and unworkable. Regrettably if this is the proposal put forward by the Trust, then I'm sorry that it reflects rather badly on them. Firstly, the fact that Lowe (and Wilde) remain on the PLC board but not on the Football board will not entice the missing fans to return and unite to save the club. I would certainly not see that as the departure of the two of them from a position of power that would entice me back. Secondly, the composition of the PLC board, although reflecting to a certain extent the shareholdings, still leaves the majority decision making with the Lowe axis, so any views that would reflect the anti Lowe faction could be ridden over roughshod, which is not exactly condusive to fraternal feelings amongst them. And undoubtedly the PLC board would naturally want to dictate to the football board such things as who is to be manager, players' wage levels, who is signed and let go, ticket prices, etc. Thirdly, what precisely would be the benefit of one or other, or both of our MPs getting involved? What qualifies them to have anything at all to do with us? The Government of which they are a part has been unable to do anything to protect the country from potentially the worst recession since the thirties, so God knows what those two could bring to us that would improve our fortunes. If the motive for sweeping boardroom changes is to be unification of the fan base, an end to the internecine warfare that has brought our club to its knees, then the only way forward is to kick all of the shareholders off the board and appoint independent board members experienced in running a football club. The candidates for Chairman and Chief Executive can be interviewed by a panel representative of the shareholding factions and if receiving broad approval, it should then be left to that new board to get on with it without interference. At least they will have no history of antagonism behind them, no petty and puerile bickering between giant egos and no reasons to alienate the fans. In fact, they ought to be able to command the moral high ground to call on the supporters to rally round the club in its hour of need, to put differences aside and heal self-inflicted wounds. None of the current shareholders have this moral authority that would enable them to make this rallying call. If the Trust were to be spending its time exploring this sort of solution, I'd have a great deal more respect for their abilities to represent the broader fan base.

If he sued somebody for accusing him of being intimidating, or even that some felt "threatened" by his behaviour, he would probably be aware that the queue to verify that allegation would be a mile long. People like Keith Wiseman have said as much and there are other credible witnesses who would love the opportunity to give their views on this in court. Lowe would get a roasting.

Well, regardless of when the whole thing was done, I'm really glad that I wouldn't renew my two STs until I knew that Pearson was to be allowed to continue. Having boycotted the last match and missed only my second home win of the season, I've got over the disappointment and feel like carrying on the boycott anyway. I'm now part of Wotte's small minority outside the stadium, but unfortunately for Lowe and the Quisling, also part of the very much bigger group who can't even be bothered to come anywhere near the stadium anymore until they have all gone.

Agree totally. There are so many much more important issues to discuss on this forum, that this is truly the biggest mountain made out of the smallest molehill.

Careful, LGTC. Otherwise you and others who run their own businesses will be asked why we aren't rich enough to buy the club, instead of being critical of those who do. Of course, some have wealth thrust upon them and others have other things to occupy their minds, like running their own businesses that made them wealthy in the first place. Not many of us have the opportunity granted to us by the board of a top division football club to take over that club purely on the basis that we ran a rather small retirement homes business that happened to be a PLC, the unfortunate side effect of which reverse takeover considerably increased the value of the shareholdings of that board.

I can sense that you haven't been able to sleep ever since Duncan made that post. Your work is probably suffering too and your wife is wondering why you are acting so strangely. I urge Duncan to keep quiet about the matter and maybe even do something similar again on another subject entirely, as Jonah's reaction is providing me with some light comic entertainment. It intrigues me to know that Jonah's life is so devoid of further diversion that he has to pursue something as trivial as this and to what end? What makes him tick is a bit of a fascinating enigma to me. Is he a closet journalist, sensing some Watergate type scandal, or perhaps he always fantasised that he would one day be an emminent Barrister; or is it done purely to stroke his own ego?

You beat me to it, Phil, but we agree totally on the accountant mentality that drives Lowe.

Quite. We had three strikers here who were all capable of scoring a hatful of goals, but who naturally were on higher pay as a result. It was crass stupidity of the highest order to loan all three of them out, expecially as two of them went to rivals of ours in this division. What a shame that we can't loan out our Chairman to other clubs in this division, but there are no clubs that would want him. He has always failed to appreciate that in this industry you have to speculate to accumulate sometimes. I'm run my own advertising company and the financial directors in a company are always difficult to pursuade that the cost of advertising can often be recouped by increased orders and sales if used prudently. Lowe with his background in the financial world is typical of the type and your analogy above is precisely what he cannot see. Additionally of course, neither can he see that if ticket prices reflected our current parlous situation, that we are no longer in the Premiership and were largely watching the youth team until recently, lower prices would help keep numbers up. But still, he won't change, as that would mean him admitting that he was wrong, which he could never do. He has never learned humility and even if he fails again and again, it would always be somebody else's fault, even the fault of the paying customer.

I see. They'd better make sure that there are lots of pictures then.

Ah. Bless! I didn't know that there that many Skate fans who could read and write.

If I hadn't boycotted the match today, it's clearly evident that we might have scored another couple of goals...

While editing to correct "grammer" the least you could do was spell grammar correctly.

No. I was outside for the first 20 minutes or so, then decided to go back into town. I could have had a ticket given to me, indeed Mary Corbett had one spare and I was offered one by somebody I'd never met before who seemingly had to leave just as the match started and asked me if I wanted a ticket. But principles are principles, so I boycotted the match and listened to it on Solent. Only the second match that we have won at home this season and I missed it. Seldom too that we score any goals at home either, let alone 3! Mind you, it could be that I'm a jinx on us at home, so perhaps I ought to stay away the rest of the season too.

I admire your persistence, Nineteen Canteen, in your attempt to pursuade the fan base towards a different approach to our current dire circumstances. But your efforts will ultimately be in vain, unless there are changes in our fortunes on the pitch and then a resultant glimmer of hope becomes a real possibility. Otherwise, it is inevitable that support and attendances will naturally dwindle as more and more fans become disillusioned with the board and their inept and bizarre experiment that has failed so dismally. The big flaws in your otherwise eloquent argument are these two points. Firstly, there is a disinclination to continue supporting the current regime purely because that support actually perpetuates the continuation of their stewardship. Many have stated that they refuse to put money into Lowe's and Wilde's pockets. Of course, it is depriving the club of that money at the same time, which is regrettable, but these fans are making a stand on a matter of principle (as am I) and there is nothing that can be said to change their minds. They pledge their return when Wilde and Lowe are gone, so the board should be under no illusions that until they go, those fans will not return. This brings me on to the second point, which is closely connected to the first. There cannot be unity amongst the supporters while Lowe and Wilde remain in charge. You admit yourself that Lowe is a busted flush, but that is sort of contradicted by your stance on what constitutes the problem or the solution. If you believe that the fans are the problem, then your viewpoint holds some water. But if as you infer by calling Lowe a busted flush that he is the problem, then it therefore follows logically that the solution is to get rid of him. I find it hard to believe that somebody as intelligent as you finds it such a difficult concept to grasp, that these divisions within the fan base will only ever increase and multiply until Lowe goes. I don't claim to represent any body of support within the fan base, but I contend that because of the two points I raised, the only conceivable outcome that will reunite the fans into a collective campaign for survival will be Lowe and Wilde's removal either voluntarily, through the bank telling them to go or through administration. Naturally I would prefer the bloodless route; their resignation. But if they refuse to budge, they will be the architects of either of the other two options. Apparently the difference between the views of Um, me and others is that under those circumstances, we blame the board for their disastrously inept handling of this season and previous ones, whereas if I read you correctly, you would blame us the customers for the failure of the PLC. Have I summarised that correctly?

Well, it would not be any of their own cabal and it should also reflect a unanimous choice too, as otherwise there would be no point in it. It definitely should not under any circumstances be Richards, Cowen or any of those associated with the reverse takeover or any previous board. We advertise for an independent chairman and chief exectutive and then it is fair that the major shareholders make their choice. Provided that the chosen candidate is acceptable to all, then what is the problem?

Ah! Somebody qualified to talk on behalf of 50% of the fans, eh? All we need now is another such as you who talks on behalf of the other 50% and we can have just two individuals who together can talk on behalf of all of us. Tell me a little more about yourself and your beliefs, as I don't know you from Adam. You'll understand that I need to know whether you represent my views, or whether I'll need to align myself behind the other fella.

No.

Do you fail to see the other side of this particular coin? The bigger mistake by far was the dismissal of Pearson and the appointment of the double Dutch nonentities. Or don't you agree?

Well, obviously the major shareholders, as they have the greatest vested interest. As demonstrations and boycotts gather speed and strength, so it becomes clearer each day that the current scenario cannot be permitted to continue. In the event of administration, the choice of a new board will rest with the administrators, so at least things are still in the hands of those major shareholders at the moment. If they don't act soon, they will not have any say in the future running of the club, as their shareholdings will have gone and the paying customers of the business will make it clear to the administators that they don't want any of the charlatans to be involved in the club's future.

Are we the lions, led by donkeys? Discuss.

Isn't the little boy in the front row to the right black? Mind you, he's either gone on his own, or his parents are white, meaning that his mother has been a bit naughty somewhere along the line.