Wes Tender

A really great event. I'd have estimated the 1500 that the Policeman said. It was an orderly march with a good cross section of fans. Although the curtains of the boardroom were closed, there was a lot of noise made on the apron outside and they can't have failed to hear inside. It was one in the eye for Nineteen Canteen / Sundance and his ridiculous assertion that only 200 would turn up and that they would be just the chav element. Also nonsense that the demonstration would affect the atmoshere in the stadium. The Northam particularly were brilliant at the match.

What a pity that the Echo weren't able to press him further on his claims that nobody could have done any better. They could for example have acknowledged that because of the poor financial position the clubs hands were tied, but his opinion could have been sought as to whether that situation precluded any other action than appointing two unknown (over here) Dutchmen from their lower divisions with nil experience of British football at this level. It would have been interesting to have heard his opinion on it, whether he supported it and whether in retrospect he thought it was still a good idea.

Nineteen Canteen:- You are going to look so stupid jumping to this conclusion which is based on some very faulty reasoning which I would have thought any reasonably intelligent person would have avoided. Take my vote for attending the march for example. I am coming along with my son, who tells me that three or four of his friends who are also Saints fans will join him, although they do not post on this forum. So my single vote actually represents 4 or 5. Neither do I fit the profile of the sort of fan that you have attempted to tar with the Neanderthal brush so beloved of your hero. The number of no votes isnt a poll of those who would not attend, but often includes those who cannot attend. And then you have not factored in the potential attendees from other forums, those who have heard about the march through the media, local and national and indeed those who are in the path of the march and who join almost on an impulse, caught up in the moment. Anyway, enough about what you suppose will happen or perhaps would like to happen. We will see soon enough who is correct. For all those naysayers like you who say that the protest will have no effect, it is worth pointing out that this is the first concerted attempt to fire a shot across the bows of the board. Personally, I wouldn't have messed around with marches, although they do have their uses in raising the media attention. I would have gone straight for the mass boycott. That would be something that would have concentrated the minds of the board right away and is without doubt the surest and quickest way to rid the club of them. But if the board seek to play down the march and show arrogant contempt, then at least the message will quickly get through to the fans that they need to up the ante considerably, so that support for the boycott will grow as a result of the march being ignored.

I have little more confidence in Wotte than I had in JP. Neither is experienced in British football at this level. The only possible glimmer of hope is that because Wotte was prepared to change the formation at Norwich for the second half and play two strikers up front, he showed more flexibility in tactical changes than the hapless Jan had demonstrated in over half a season before. If he is somebody that learns from his mistakes and rectifies them accordingly, then there is at least more chance of survival than under JP who seemingly learnt nothing from his mistakes. But then again, Lowe has never learned anything from his mistakes as he doesn't even acknowledge having made any. It is a bit of a connundrum as to whether Wotte can do better than JP having been his subordinate. If he could, why wasn't he appointed before JP? Frankly I have little faith in either of them and fear that the entire barmy Dutch experiment should have been dropped like a hot brick at the time of JPs departure. Lowe's insistence of carrying on with Wotte instead of appointing a capable British manager will be the reason for our relegation, but at least if that happens, Lowe will have nowhere to hide and noboby to blame but himself.

That rather depends on how the team are playing, doesn't it? The idiots would more likely be the ones who are prepared to pay their £24 or so and tolerate anything that the team produces. If they put in maximum effort and lose, fair enough. But if they are visibly not giving it their all, wouldn't you say that people who have paid their hard-earned cash to be entertained have a right to show their displeasure if they are not getting value for their money? By and large, unless the players are not giving their all, any protests would be aimed at the directors' box, which ought not to affect the players. It is regrettable though that many have arrived at the stage where having witnessed only one victory at home all season, they are fed up with the team at home anyway and should they go behind to Swansea, it would be entirely understandable if some get agitated through frustration. But if they have lost the match, then I think that the post match protest will be very angry and vociferous. I'll be on the march and at the match. I reserve the right to protest when and where I want, without anybody telling me.

The prospective signing of Deeneboom was only a red herring to reflect attention away from other matters.

And in your eyes, do you think that they are otherwise equal things? Who is the better person when doing a good deed to others less fortunate? The one who does it for free, or the one who does it for money? Who does the better good for the club? The one who gets involved for their own personal financial gain, or the one who gives freely of their time and efforts just for the love of the club. I ask these questions as it seems that somehow you feel the two things are the same.

Read again the first three words of my post... But equally faulty... Of course it wasn't the argument being made made by the other poster. The word "equally" is suggestive that I am making another point entirely. And as you say, well I know it. As usual, I am perfectly well aware what I am saying. I am also aware that although not actually in the relegation zone when he came, he did inherit a downward trend when he arrived and had to do without the first, second and third choice goallie, Rasiak and Scacel out on loan, a leaky defence, a team lacking confidence after Burley's departure and Dodd and Gorman's brief tenure. So instead of your assertion that I want Pearson's tenure to be judged in isolation from the factors before it, that is not strictly true either. If his performance is judged in the light of what he inherited from before he arrived and other factors are taken into account regarding poor squad morale, lack of fitness, injuries, players out on loan and replacements he made having to gel quickly, then most would say that he did a good job in a limited and difficult situation. If you want to argue it further, pay your fiver, or else attempt to read what is said more carefully.

But equally faulty is the mistaken reasoning that some spout that we were in that position because Pearson had failed to get better results . Our position at the end of the season was as a result of points gained or dropped in every match of the season. Therefore that must take account of the position inherited by him from matches where either Burley or Dodd and Gorman were in charge before him.

You must live in cloud cuckoo land. Lowe tells it how it is? So you're the one that believes everything that is said by the OS. And while you condemn the appointment of Dodd as a mistake and it was, then kindly accept that Wigley, Gray and JP were just as ridiculous mistakes by Lowe with the difference that we had more money and a Premiership standing for the first two and a perfectly decent English manager doing a reasonable job when he dismissed Pearson for the Dutch clowns. As usual, your posts are riddled with inconsistencies and are now also shot full of holes.

You are entitled to your opinion of course, although IMO it sounds a tad mad also.

Has Alpine said this before many times? I must have missed it.

HeHe. Police phorensic investigators prove that the clippings came from the Daily Sport and the Beano and conclude that they are dealing with a criminal mastermind.

If Michael Wilde recived death threats, then that is a very bad and there is nothing that could justify it. But the misspelled headline sums up the Echo perfectly. It is a local rag of little significance and if they can't even proof-read their main headline properly, then it is symptomatic of the lack of quality in the employees that they have working for them.

Ah! Given your crystal ball a polish again? Perhaps there might have been the extra 10,000 through the gates that have deserted us since the return of Lowe and the Quisling giving extra revenue. Perhaps Pearson would not have signed the dross that has been signed under Poortvliet's tenure, you know, the players who are rejects at their lower division clubs, or who couldn't even get a game when their father is manager. Perhaps the unity that had been demonstrated under the previous regime might have been much preferable to the poison atmosphere that pervades the club under the two most hated figures in the club's history. Perhaps we might not see all these PR people spinning for all they're worth on behalf of said hated figures.

A really good interview. He gave quite a good account of himself I thought.

He hasn't been used properly IMO by Burley or his successors. I agree with most that he ought to be playing LM or it might be interesting if he had a free roaming midfield role too. Because of the **** treatment that the club has dished out to him, I don't blame him at all for his attitude. I think that a manager with good man-management ability will give him a go, build his confidence and return him to the player that he was at Hearts. Not having him in the team when it comprises so many raw youngsters or useless rejects from other low division teams is a total waste of talent and experience that could make a real difference to our survival prospects.

No it isn't. Its seems like Mr.Poortvliet doesnt like Wotte that much.. http://www.setanta.com//uk/Articles/...te/gnid-37457/

Go on, Alpine. Just say "yes". It will disprove sidthesquid's theory in three little letters.

He has as much right to express his opinion on a fans' forum as you, Bungle. Or would you be so arrogant as to deny that?

Saganowski played for Swansea? When? I must have missed that one. But seriously, you reckon that it is an excuse that Wotte hasn't seen Saganowski play? You're joking, right? Or didn't you realise that there is such a thing as doing a bit of preparation by watching videos of a player before playing him? I would expect that he also did some preparation along the same lines on Norwich. As for the change of formation, why did he start the JP way and why did he change to 4-4-2? Can we now expect that the Dutch style "total" football is dead in the water, although Wotte's experience in playing the 4-4-2 formation is probably nil. Alpine is permitted to express his opinion on Wotte based on him being JP's subordinate and having seen several months of failure to beat the teams around us, especially at home. We will see how Wotte fares against Swansea on Saturday. If he can get a home win and double JP's achievements in a stroke, then that will be something. Otherwise, Alpine and many others are quite understandly nervous that we are messing about with Dutch nobodies instead of getting in an experienced British manager before it is too late.

And I can see many negative people trying to pick holes in it before it even begins. If it is expected that it will be peopled by troublemakers and yoof singing anti-Pompey songs, then up to the more sensible people to turn up in numbers and keep them in order. Are you a more sensible person by any chance? Do you want Lowe, Wilde, Askham etc gone from the club? Then go along. If you had no intention of going anyway, please don't try and pursuade others from going with your negativity. As for the argument that Lowe and the others won't hear it unless it's at the ground, Lowe won't hear it anyway as he's away. But he is literate and does have eyes; he can read about it. Anyway, this is aimed more at those cowardly people who prop up his regime, Wilde and Askham and other charlatans.

My thoughts exactly. We did considerably better with an experienced backbone in the side and two up front. We were totally nondescript in the first half with the typical Poortvliet formation of one up front. What was Wotte thinking leaving out Saganowski from the starting line-up and why wasn't Scacel playing too? As Merrington pointed out, with McLaggan on the left and Dyer on the right, we would have two fast wide players to get behind defences. To be fair to McGoldrick, seemingly his work rate was good tonight and he covered well defensively too. But what a difference playing 4-4-2 made. Perhaps that caught Norwich on the hop, as Poortvliet was incapable of playing that formation and Wotte had started out with a typical Poortvliet formation, so that Norwich assumed that we were incapable of changing it. Let's carry it on with Swansea and also play Saga, Scacel and Euell to give us some beef.

It has already failed and him just changing one Dutch manager for another won't make it better, especially as the other Dutchman was subordinate to the first one. It should serve as an object lesson for all other chairman in British football. The old adage still rings true; pay peanuts and you get monkeys. Whether those monkeys are Dutch or English is irrelevant.

Over 1000 confirmed, eh? That makes Ninteen Canteen's figure of 162 look a bit silly, doesn't it? But he obviously made the mistake of counting just those who had committed on here. If anywhere near 1000 turn up at the start, the attendance will snowball when it gets going through the city centre and others join in on impulse. This could be big. It could also have the numbers swell if we lose badly tonight against Norwich.