Wes Tender

Was the question asked of the board at the libel case why the board didn't properly investigate the other offers? As I infer, as far as I'm aware the board used some lame excuse such as the offers had been made too late. Under those circumstances I still hold the opinion that they acted with undue haste. Of course, the haste had nothing to do with the fact that the minute the reverse takeover made the club a PLC, the nominally valued £1 shares made millionaires of Askham, Richards, Gordon etc, while their shareholdings had cost only between £2000/£2500. Useless speculating where we might have been now had the board waited a little longer to see what other offers might have arrived. Perhaps we might have been playing our home games in the Premiership in the magnificent Virgin stadium at Stoneham. Or perhaps we might have attracted somebody who was more useless than Lowe had been.

What is less arguable, is that we ended the season on a high with that win against Sheffield Unitied and it is a reasonable assumption that support for him would have continued to hold good with the optimism that he had brought. Undoubtedly the crowd numbers would have remained higher with Pearson there without Lowe back in charge. Even if Crouch as chairman had forced the savings on Pearson that Lowe did on Poortvliet, support would have remained stronger in my opinion, as Crouch would have had a higher moral standing to have called on the fans' support for Pearson and the team than Lowe had. Lowe had lost much moral high ground when he got us relegated and lost the rest when he dismissed Pearson. There are not many who reckon that Pearson would have gone about things in the same way as Poortvliet, even with the same finances. So as you say, it is pure conjecture to assess whether he would have been more unsucessful (or less unsuccessful )than JP.

It's really quite simple. In the first season there were high expectations that we would go straight back up. After a short spell with Redcrap, we had Burley in charge and many thought he knew what he was doing. In that season after, Lowe had gone and we were spending some money and at least keeping in touch with the play-offs. Having missed the play-offs, the following season started with fairly bright expectations that we could have another bash at it. But Burley proved to be more and more inept with his team selections and had not properly addressed the defence in all the time he was here. After the disasterous mini spell of Dodd and Gorman, the appointment of Pearson steadied the decline in numbers attending and a full house against Sheffield United indicated that with him as manager the attendances might well have gone up this season. Lowe's return in conjunction with the Quisling put paid to that. Immediately there were some who did not renew their STs, my two included. Initially the OS propaganda machine went into overdrive spinning the exciting football revolution that the double Dutch would herald, involving the exciting young stars who had risen through the Academy. For a while, it looked as if there might be something in it and attendances remained steady, but the sceptics who predicted that it would fail were proven right. With the lengthening number of games that ended in losses or draws at home, as it became clearer that Poortvliet was totally out of his depth and that paying Premiership prices to watch the youth team was a waste of money, numbers naturally declined. More recently, there have been serious numbers who have made a decision not to attend further until Lowe is gone. I'm pretty well in that position myself now. It isn't going to get better whilst he is here. No matter how many bleat that we should put these personal vendettas aside for the good of the club, it will be counter-argued that the sooner Lowe leaves the better for the club it will be. The way to ensure that he goes in the shortest space of time is a well planned and well observed mass boycott.

Yes. It was to do with the weather; whether they could be arsed to see another home defeat. Whether they could be arsed to keep Lowe here any longer. Whether they were prepared to pay top dollar for watching dross. He obviously wasn't intelligent to figure out that we had 17,000 because (a)Swansea used their entire allocation of seats and (b) our attendance figures included all ST holders whether they were there or not © there may well have been a slightly increased attendance because of that 1/2000 who came on the march and went to the match as a result. If he believes they all went home satisfied after the match, then he really hasn't a clue.

I'll take issue with the highlighted bits if I may. The statement that our problems are not solveable by any chairman who has to make the best of what we have cannot be substantiated as it is purely conjecture and your opinion, nothing else. It is entirely possible that another chairman could have done considerably better than Lowe has. Just for starters, he might well have had a far better base of support from the fans, who Lowe divides. Surely I don't need to spell out that more fans = more revenue = better ability to keep good players or buy better players. I'm also fairly sure that a half decent chairman wouldn't have made the mistakes Lowe has regarding employing a couple of foreigners inexperienced in English football, nor the strategy of blooding too many youngsters before they were ready. Next, you seem to contradict yourself when you say that the anti lowe stuff doesn't help, it hinders and probably makes things worse. Presumably if it doesn't help, it hinders, then how can it probably make things worse? Or did you mean that probably it doesn't help or probably makes things worse? You really don't seem very sure about what effect it all has on the players, do you? It really is a bizarre set of circumstances when the team don't seem to be able to perform at home in front of a stadium of fans whose support has generally been unwavering at home, whereas they do better in front of away fans supporting the other team and booing anything they do. When Lowe has gone and taken the Quisling with him, then I'm certain that you'll find all those people on your list will willingly unite behind the new chairman and the new experienced British manager. I for one will renew both of our STs and buy merchandise from the shop again. I had been to all home games apart from two I missed in January while away on holiday. But I boycotted the Sheffield United game, will also boycott the next game and quite possibly all the remaining games this season. If there are many others who have had enough, then the Bank will either pull the plug on us, or we will be in administration. I sincerely hope that Lowe and Wilde will fall on their swords and pave the way for an independent chairman and chief executive to be appointed before it is too late. If they are too stubborn and pig-headed to go for the good of the club, then although I will regret it, I will feel no pangs of conscience if the club goes under.

You're an intelligent guy, Nineteen. So why can't you just join up the dots and arrive at the proper conclusion, that the crazy experiment that was Lowe's brainchild was invevitably going to produce the result that it has? Many of us predicted that this would happen. We expressed doubts early on about the risks involved with playing the youngsters to this extent. We pointed out that they had been in a culture of winning most matches against their contemporaries and regular defeat might dent their confidence. We also pointed out that the best policy was surely to blood them a few at time when they were ready and even then for part of a match early on to see how they fared. We stressed that the best results would come from playing a mixture of older experienced players alongside the most promising youngsters, that mix producing both freshness combined with wisdom, speed mixed with guile and the perfect environment from which the youngsters would learn from the seniors. But oh no; Lowe wanted to think outside of the box, to ignore the tried and tested wisdom, to be the innovator. So he ignored everything that made sense and even decided that to make things really left field, he'd appoint foreign coaches with nil experience in British football and have the youngsters play a style of football alien to the mainstream game at this level in British football too. It has all gone terribly wrong as was predictable. Can't you see that debating whether it is us the paying customers who are culpable is totally wide of the mark? All I am asking you to see, is that it didn't need to be like this. That Lowe has made it so and is therefore the one who should take the blame for it all. Now, I know that Lowe's personality will never have him admit that he has ever made a mistake, but I'd like to think that this character deficiency was one that wasn't widespread amongst the actual fanbase. So do you agree broadly with my assessment or not? If not, I'd be interested as to where our opinions differ.

Yes, as they held these shares that were nominally valued at £1. As we know, the value of those shares rocketed after the reverse takeover and they benefitted too. But on the other hand, the idea was formulated by Askham and his mates, Richards, Gordon, Hunt etc and they would have had a majority to force it through even had the Corbett family or Lawrie been against it. Mary has said that her father was old and ill at the time, so I think that the family do have a valid excuse. IMO, the reverse takeover took place with undue haste. There was no urgent hurry and it was rumoured at the time that as well as the Frost/Davis consortium, there were also an Arab and an Israeli consortium lining up bids.

You've got to admire the guy's chutzpah! So he resigned in the hope that it would bring unity? If he really meant that, he would of course have resigned much earlier. Of course, it had nothing at all to do with the fact that he realised that his position was untenable because the majority of shareholdings held against him would have ditched him out on his arse in bitter ignominy had he persisted in trying to hold on by his fingertips until after the EGM. What a noble and principled man Lowe is. I am full of admiration for these honorable character traits that he had demonstrated; I am sure that they were ingrained from his upbringing and private eduction at Radley. Breeding, dear boy, breeding.

Could it be that he didn't sue South Today or indeed Panorama over the allegations made in "The Shares game" programme because he was reticent to do so because then the whole affair would have been put firmly under the microscope? He did however sue David Mellor for his opinion that the reverse takeover was "incentivised."

Saintwarwick: Read what he said again and then realise that you didn't comprehend an opinion that was really quite clearly expressed. But if the penny still doesn't drop, I'll attempt to clarify his meaning for you. Club finances have suffered because numbers attending have fallen since Lowe came back. Now that may be for several reasons. Many may detest Lowe and Wilde so much that they decided not to go whilst he remains. Others might not be going because they perceive the cost to be too high for the poor fare that is served up. Yet more might not be attending because the mad experiment with inexperienced cheapo Dutch managers playing youngsters has only managed to produce one home win in 2/3rds of a season. Whichever way you look at it, Club revenues have fallen through reduced attendances because of Lowe personally or his failed policies. As to the question regarding whether ticket prices have risen or not, then yes; technically they have. The prices have remained the same even though we are playing in the division below, so this is like paying 5* prices for a 4* Hotel. Would you be happy doing that? Any questions?

Fine as far as it goes, but totally ignoring the fact that these lads are also in the entertainment business and people pay their hard-earned dosh to be entertained. The reason that the players' pay gets brought up is because of envy by most, but also because if those who earn less than them and make the sacrifice of their money to watch them, then they are entitled to see maximum effort from the players. If the players visibly aren't trying, the fans are perfectly entitled to complain. If the players look as if they are trying hard, then I am really hard pressed to remember the crowd getting on their backs. Of course, many have decided that both the entertainment value is lacking, (especially at home where they have witnessed just one win by two thirds of the way through the season) and that value is missing two. The cost of attending without a ST is a fiasco, especially as we paid mostly to watch the youth team having a run out which was available free last season. Apart from the ST holders who have already paid, so might as well go, many others have stayed away. So a large proportion of those at the stadium have already paid to watch the team and naturally they are fully entitled to be upset and frustrated at what they are having to endure every home game. They gambled on laying out money in advance, not knowing that what they would recieve in return would be a pale shadow of what they had previously got in return. One thing is plain though. They won't make that mistake again next year if Lowe is still here.

Well, it will be if the mass boycott achieves any real measure of support. I'm sure that the support for the boycott would increase substantially if we lose to Watford on Saturday, along with the pressure on Lowe.

I'm amazed to read that the club had awarded him the coveted 41 shirt. Surely that only goes to those incoming players at the very top of the British game. And why no press conference either?

I thought that you were more intelligent than that, but will have to revise my opinion. I really can't be arsed to go into more detail, as the original statement made by Sid was that lack money was the only reason we are we are. You concur with that statement. You give a few reasons in a vain attmept to support you premise, but the premise is full of holes to begin with and cannot stand up by itself. The couple of posts after mine are far more sensibly made than both yours and Sid's. Even your assertion that the wages are more evenly distributed across the team at other clubs is a total red herring. Of course there are players with more experience and ability who usually earn more than a raw youngster who is developing. We certainly have plenty of those. As for the low gates, they would improve substantially if 1) the team was winning with regularity 2) the prices were more reasonable 3) the team comprised bigger name experienced footballers, playing more entertaining football. Most feel cheated paying Premiership prices to watch last season's youth. So plenty of other reasons why it is NOT that simple, nor just the reason that you say that we have no money. Those who say that something like this is simple are usually the simple ones themselves.

Lack of money isn't necessarily the only reason. There are teams in the Premiership who comparitively are as poor as us against their rivals, as indeed there are other teams in this division who aren't exactly awash with cash either. But they get by because the board allows the manager to use his experience of the division to get in a decent blend of young and older players who have certain attributes which will hold the team in good stead at this level. They also have boards where most fans don't even know or care who is on them and fan friendly attitudes so that prices are fixed at levels to maximise attendances to gain most revenue. We are going down because our performances on the pitch are worse than those of our rivals. That is the main reason, not money. It really is as simple and boring as that.

You might want those things, but there is no way that you are going to get them. Firstly, it is not a reasonable expectation that the vast majority of true fans will stand idly by and let the club go down the pan without at least attempting to do something about it. The close season will be too late. We will either be relegated or in receivership or both. There will be no watertight guarantee even that Lowe and Wilde would be gone either. Secondly, it is entirely debateable as to whether boardroom politics affect team performance and ability to attract staff, although naturally it can affect the general feelgood factor, as it has already. The one thing that we need desperately is external investment and it has been rumoured that potential investors have been put off from investing whilst Lowe and Wilde are in charge. In over a decade, Lowe has never attracted anything significant in this direction anyway, so that is no surprise that we are not getting any now. As far as I can see, nobody disagrees that all of the people who have been associated with the club at board level need to have no part in the running of the club, although they are quite entitled to keep their shareholdings if they wish and cannot be forced to relinquish them, except through administration. There are however many who see potential in a halfway house through ridding the club of the really divisive elments of Lowe and Wilde, perhaps having Crouch as chairman for an interim period and appointing a British manager with experience of how to get results in this situation in this division. His chairmanship could be sanctioned on the basis that we advertise for a chairman and chief executive to take over from him, but in the meantime we have a period of unity which is vital in the closing stages of this season if we are to have any hope of staying solvent and staying up. I don't blame any who are campaigning through a boycott for Lowe and Wilde to go. It is their prerogative as paying customers to withdraw their support and keep their own money in their pockets if they so wish. Wouldn't it be ludicrous to blame the customers for not buying the product when of course it is the fault of the people running the company who have produced a sub-standard product not worth the price? It is obvious where the blame lies and as a consequence those responsible should go before they can do any more damage than they already have.

But they don't have to, do they? This is a forum for opinions, so perfectly reasonable for there to be a diverse spectrum. But it would be a mistake to lump together all those with one viewpoint and dismiss their opinions as being without balance just because they advocate one position and not another. That cuts both ways of course. One must accept that most have arrived at their judgement having already considered the arguments from both sides and made up their own minds where they stand. Even though there is a vast majority who favour one position over another, does not make that position the correct one, although it is at least indicative. However, when the vast majority of dissenters are the paying customers of a business, it matters not whether they are right or wrong. If they cease to support that business by not buying its products, the business will cease to exist. The business ignores its paying customers at its peril. That is the crux of the current state of affairs at the club.

Mandaric please, especially if it involved getting back Pearson too.

None of the above. A competent British manager with an understanding of British football at this level, please.

Nineteen Canteen is without a doubt Sundance Beast, who was formerly Flashman at the charge. As you correctly surmise, under this alias and indeed both of those previous aliases he used to rant and rage about Crouch way beyond any reason, leading one to conclude that he had a personal vendetta against him. Everything he posts now must be seen against that background. He is not posting on grounds of balance, or because he believes that Lowe should only go when there is a viable alternative; he is compelled to post against any view that suggests that Crouch might do a better job than Lowe because of his personal hatred for Crouch.

And Lowe does? You are talking out of your posterior edifice. There are many facets involved in running a football club. One involves being able to run a successful business from a financial perspective. Lowe is supposed to have the right qualifications for that side, reading the bottom figure on a balance sheet is what that involves, although he has even made mistake there too. The other aspect of running a club involves the relationship between the board, the manager, players and the fans. Lowe has failed dismally in that respect, Lowe having presided over a club record number of appointments and firings, we are heading towards the club's second relegation under his control, whilst alienating the vast majority of the fan base at the same time. From the perspective of her realtionship towards the fans, Mary Corbett could well be far more competant than Lowe. She and her family have a significant shareholding, more or less equal to that held by Lowe, so she has a perfect right to express her opinions. You have no idea what she is going to say, do you? So why be disparaging about it beforehand?

And by the way, Stu, as I said on the other thread, a superb idea. I have been calling for a boycott for several weeks, but your twist on it is both immaginative and clever. I also think that the various forums and the FaceBook campaign need to be united. Therefore the combined march to the stadium and the march away could sensibly be combined. It could be that those marching to the stadium who might otherwise then take their seats, might be caught up in the mood of the marching away group and join us.

The usual arrogance that we've come to expect. So we don't love the club, we don't know what we're protesting about, we're fickle Premiership fans, etc. I would suggest that by wanting to take this action to rid the club of the most divisive elements in its history, the case could be made that we love it more than you who is prepared to just sit on your hands and do nothing. Yes, I'm protesting about Lowe and have done so for nearly all of the time he has been here, since the reverse takeover. Thankfully others have finally woken up to the fact that he has shown his incompetance by his one or more a year managerial merry go round, his bizarre experiment that has failed dismally and made us a laughing stock and his personal greed that means that he has taken far more out of the club than he has ever put in. Even your argument that the mass boycott would take valuable funds away from the board isn't without flaw. In the short term I agree. But I am pretty sure that provided Lowe doesn't stupidly dig his heels in and the bank doesn't take its time in intervening, there is plenty of scope for returning fans and renewed ST sales to make up the deficit and get behind the team once again. And as you don't give a sh*t as to what we do, why bother responding to the thread? You don't give a sh*t, but most of us care very deeply. Rather shows who does love the club more, eh?

If he's here, I won't be.

Mass boycott NOW. Let's get rid of the really divisive elements running the club and then put in place the restoration plans of appointing the new manager and get right behind him and the team he picks. As soon as that happens, I'll buy a ST for a start.