Wes Tender

Here I agree with you. We needed a manager with experience in British leagues, regardless of his nationality. What a shame that the board didn't realise that, especially when we already had one here.

looks as if there's going to be so much empty space around you, Nineteen Canteen, that you'll be wondering whether you have really bad body odour of halitosis.

Agree totally. All of us digruntled fans should realise that we will achieve nothing if there is not unity of purpose. We should unite and boycott until the pompous egotistical ass is gone and has taken the treacherous Quisling and the other charlatans with him. Also, as a beneficial side effect, the players with poorer levels of concentration will not see any dissent amongst the fans in the stadium, as we won't be there. I'm sure that you will be happy also that the disruptive elements like me will be removed, so that the stadium only contains those entirely positive people. Shame that there aren't more of them, eh? Start winning games, reduce the prices and there might be, but paying £24 to watch loss after loss is not good value or good entertainment. It's really simple; As long as Lowe and Wilde remain, the numbers attending will decrease and the protests will increase.

Exactly. Me too

No. I might begin to go to some away matches like Yeovil, Swindon, Brighton, Cheltenham and perhaps MK Dons.

I listened to some of the game on the radio on my phone while shopping. From what I heard, we were really dire in the first half and according to Merrington the problems that BC caused us were because Wotton played just in front of the back four, thus weakening the midfield and allowing them forward onto us. Wotte changed things about later in the half and we started to look more in it. In the second half we seemingly played better, but this season under either Dutch joker has always been the same; we are capable of only playing 45 minutes of half decent football. As Merrington says when asked what he thought could be done, Dyer should have been brought back to give us extra width and pace. We went too far into the season playing just one at front, especially at home. We shouldn't have let all of the experienced strikers out on loan. Now, I know this is going to seem totally barmy, but a thought struck me. I must confess that Dave Merrington often analyses the shortcomings correctly and has sensible suggestions as to how we could have made the most of the financial difficulties. So it occurred to me that we could do a lot worse than having Merrington back in charge of the team! I never thought that such an idea would ever cross my mind, but the more I think about it, the more I conclude that he would have made a better fist of it than the hapless Dutch duo. I really don't care about the result. I just feel numb nowadays. If it means that the campaign to oust Lowe and the Quisling is given extra impetus, I can actually feel quite positive about it.

I'm not happy that the players are walking around with these stamps on their foreheads and noses declaring to the world that they are Saints players; that's just asking for trouble.

The blanket you have is wet because you have been sucking on it again, Chi.

No, we don't, especially as we now have Wilde and Lowe combined.

One thing's for sure, you are not entitled to make assertions like that and dress them up as fact. What you are spouting is crap, pure conjecture. Many on here share the opposite opinion, that had Crouch remained, so would Pearson have remained. Again, under those circumstances, most believe that we would have been higher up the table than we are and almost certainly the club would have been more unified, with more cash through the turnstiles. Having seen the further points in support of your original comment, all you have added is more baseless conjecture with no more validity than mine. Nothing at all is factual.

Agree entirely. Nineteen's post would have been a very sensible call to arms under other circumstances; let's all pull together to get us out of this mess and then make the changes. But the circumstances of our current plight are not normal. The man who is running the club has irretrievedly broken the relationship with the fans, the paying customers that the club needs onside to keep us going through perilous financial straits. Even if he had the humility to admit that his mad experiment that has caused our current parlous state was an error of judgement and that he was wrong to attempt it, he might bring a few back on board. But nobody is under any illusions that he will ever admit that it was extremely foolhardy to attempt what he did, so the blame sits fairly on his shoulders. So the realistic alternatives that Nineteen listed are incomplete. There should obviously be a fourth option, the resignation of the current board, which would produce the badly needed return of unity at a stroke amongst the fan base. Then the new chairman would have the moral authority to call for a return of the fans to help the club survive this season to rebuild the next. They could promise to advertise for a new independent chairman and chief executive to take over then. I agree that these protests are doing nothing to help our survival, but then they are not meant to. The purpose of them is to rid us of the current board. Until they are gone, the protests will continue. The resignation of the board is the only thing that will cause the protests to cease, so the sooner they realise that, the sooner we can begin to heal divisions, restore unity and the badly damaged spirit of the Saints.

Sage advice, Nineteen. If this is to work, we need unity. But there is no disunity if there is one march to the stadium and one protest following on, be that a mass boycott, a walk away or my preferred option a mass protest outside the ground whilst the match is in progress. At least there is unity of purpose, which is what really matters. And I know from the freudian slip that I highlighted that you let your guard down for a second to hint that you really want Lowe and Wilde gone as much as the rest of us.

Hadn't you noticed? This IS a thread that disusses something different. Point me out another thread during this season's mad decline where the Echo has finally come out and admitted that things are so very badly wrong with Saints.

As usual and showing the traits that Lowe does, you are totally incapable of admitting that you made an error in your original post, so instead of admitting it, you bluster and backtrack, attempt to cloud the issue by introducing other facets. I didn't mention Ian Pearce because he didn't play against Hull either. In fact, he arrived a few days after the Plymouth match and was only on a 30 day loan, playing only one match against S****horpe and nothing further because of injury. So in the example that you used, the Hull 5-0 defeat, the only player signed by Pearson as a loanee that featured in that game was Pericard. The rest of your tirade is you proving what a drama queen you can be when anybody has the temerity to pull the rug from under your feet.

Agreed. A bit like saying that Gorman had failed and demanding that Dodd be given more time.

On the first point, when I took part in that march, there were at least 1000 people on that march and I'd have put it closer to 2000. If what you said was true before that march, you weren't there, so cannot realistically comment with conviction. If you don't believe me and have some spare time, count the people going past the camera outside the King Alfred pub on YouTube. On the second point, you're right. But no harm done by holding the march to the stadium, especially if it then combines with an onward going protest at the stadium.

There is no reason why the two things should conflict. The march to the ground can take place as it did before. The march from the ground, or as I suggested, the demonstration outside the stadium during the entire course of the match can continue on from the arrival of those marching there from the Bargate. I agree wholeheartedly with Stu though, that although there are some benefits in the march as per the pre-Swansea one, Lowe and the board comprise some thick skinned and obstinate sods who won't bat an eyelid at the majority of the fan base not liking them. To have any effect on the issue at all, you need to put a gun against their heads metaphorically and play Russian roulette with them. We could hold a march to the stadium every home game for the next decade and that won't shift them. But a mass boycott would be that gun. Even if they resisted one boycott, they would either have to resign on the second or third, or the Bank might well have pulled the plug on them and given an ultimatum that unless they left the board and made way for others to run the PLC, they will withdraw their support and call in the loan. So by all means let's have the march to the stadium. But once there, let's stop pussy-footing around and get serious and play hardball with the incompetent fools who are killing the club. Take it from me that Lowe and the Quisling would just love us to be squabbling amongst ourselves. Let's unite and save our club before there is nothing left to save.

I've met Mary several times and she has always been personable, and approachable. She always expresses her opinions calmly and with conviction. She isn't the sort of person to be afraid to seek advice from others if she feels that would assist her to make the right decision. In short, she would be the perfect antidote to the egotistical and overbearing present incumbent.

Really? I hadn't realised that, as I have always been inside the ground. But I still don't think that it would be a problem for the Police to leave it closed, as it is not as if there is no other route available around it. Any traffic going in the direction of Ocean Village or the bridge can turn off either before or after Britannia Road.

I don't for one minute believe that the Police would have a problem with fans outside the stadium as a static protest. As I said, the road is closed anyway during the match and they would probably prefer us to be there altogether rather than in town. Also, I suspect that they might resent the board attempting to order them to take action against a peaceful protest on the public highway which would technically be a neutral venue during the match.

I think that you're thinking of the father, not the son at Posh. But even the son doesn't quite measure up at Peterborough with Pearson at Leicester IMO.

Stu, the idea of some form of additional protest is a good one and initially I concurred that a march away from the stadium would generate some good extra publicity. But having read other comments on the original thread, from people who would march there and go in to the game and others who held STs who would march, but felt that their protest would not be registered as they are counted in the attendance figures, I had a rethink and proposed the following solution:- Firstly, the ST holders have already paid their money and because of the farcical way that the club assesses attendances, are deemed to be there at the stadium even if they did not attend. There must be a fair few ST holders who are equally fed up with the way that the club is going downhill fast under Lowe and the Quisling, yet because they coughed up for their STs before they arrived, feel that they ought to attend having paid for their tickets. And yet these ST holders could play a valuable part in the protest in return for the little personal sacrifice that many other fans are making. They are the ones who could enter the stadium having already paid for their tickets and then as soon as the whistle blows to start the game they can file out of the stadium. I'm wondering whether another possibility would be that instead of marching away from the stadium, those who have marched there, plus those who are boycotting the match and who would have marched away, all remain outside the stadium during the match. Supposing we made it a bit of an event, had some form of entertainment out there, ex-players, food and drink laid on and a live radio feed of the match. Imagine that the chanting and cheers/jeers came from outside the stadium and was captured on national television as a football version of Henman's Hill outside Wimbledon. How effective would that look, especially if the TV people made a visual comparison between the crowded areas outside in contrast to the wide spaces inside. Another benefit of making a lot of noise outside, would be that if the match was being lost, we could all chant "come and join us" and might therefore attract additional numbers to leave the stadium and support the protest. Additionally we would be visible to the board members before the match, at half-time and at the end of the match. Depending on how the match went, many might join the protest outside if it goes badly, as there would already be a good crowd outside to begin with. It wouldn't matter whether the club disallowed the Northam to leave through the car park as they did the last game; they would hear the protest after the final whistle and come and join us. If we march away from the stadium, that might look good initially, but human nature being what it is, many won't even make it as far as the City Centre and the visual impact would be gone fairly quickly. If we all stayed outside the stadium during the match, the cameraderie and unity allied to something interesting to entertain us would maintain the visual impact throughout. Your thoughts, please. Once we begin the march away from the stadium, the media impact will vanish. If we stay outside the stadium during the match, we might well have additional exposure during the continuous match reports, as well as providing a focus for disgruntled fans who might leave the match and join us. If there is to be a poll, perhaps we ought to include this as an option too. Personally I'd stay outside the stadium for 90 minutes, but not bother with the trip to Yates, as my wife and youngest son will be in town shopping, so I'd just join them instead if I went back to the toen centre. I suspect that many others have reasons and similar excuses for not marching back too

Are we? Doh! It just goes to show how disinterested I have become in everything Saints related. As I had said elsewhere, I really am in the mood for boycotting the remainder of the matches this season, unless I have a change of heart. It really is a sad indictment when fans like me decide that they really can't be that bothered about the club anymore, although my eagerness to get Lowe and Wilde out at any cost is increasing daily. Oh well, a bit more time for the protest march and boycott to be organised for the next home game and extra impetus for it if we lose against an in-form Bristol.

I don't disagree particularly with the first part and agree wholeheartedly with the second part. We really could do with the entire bunch of them selling their shares and going.

Has it? That rather depended on what the result might have been. Had we won, there would have been less impetus on protests this coming weekend. As it is, we have been in a state of limbo, the dissent from a growing number of fans just simmering beneath the surface, waiting to erupt.