Wes Tender

This is what I believe. I actually welcome another thread about a mass boycott as it will help spread ideas. Verbal Kint also mirrored a post made by CB Fry to a certain extent (there were other useful suggestions by CB as to how this could be made more effective). If there is anybody out there with connections and time to do it, I would call on them to read CB Fry's post again on the boycott thread and see whether action can be taken to put it into effect. For me, it was a comprehensive blueprint for effective action. Perhaps it could be the subject of a separate thread and a call for volunteers to come forward and help enact it?

Glad that in hindsight I adopted the correct attitude of wait and see before any euphoric anticipation of what might come to pass. As it happens though, we have been worse than I could have ever anticipated.

The Quisling just doesn't have the guts to change again. That is the nature of the man. He runs Guy Askham a close second as the man responsible for the most damage inflicted on this club. Lowe is dispicable, but it was Askham, Richards, Gordon etc that allowed him to take control the first time around and Wilde and those shareholders from the old board who allowed him back in control the second time. Just imagine where we could have been had Lowe and Cowan stuck to their previous forte; running retirement homes. Time for you to retire Rupert and take all of your cronies with you.

Nice to see you post again, Halo, although sadly you voice the sentiments of so many, but in a way that brings home exactly what following this club means to their everyday lives. Take heart though that this lowest point in our history will eventually result one way or another in the departure of Poortvliet, Lowe, Wilde and all the others who have laid us so low. The darkest hour is just before the dawn, which is where we are now.

You have a point, but I would suggest that as you are on the other side of the World, perhaps your perspective is a little different to those a bit closer to home. I suspect that there are already a sizeable contingent of those who live at a distance whereby it costs them too much time and expense to get here who have already decided that their attendance is not worth the effort whilst our home record is so dire. But there are indeed many who live at a more convenient distance who I agree continue to attend in the vain hope of a turnaround. However, I feel that the time has now come after that defeat by Doncaster that they might now be prepared to take action if a boycott was well organised, well publicised and well supported by some celebrity elements such as past players as outlined so eloquently and cleverly by CB Fry.

I saw the result at 8am this morning (1am GMT) and was devastated that we have sunk so low that we can't even beat Doncaster Rovers at home. However, this thread is encouraging, as it is the first sign of an actual demonstration manifesting itself. I hope that the board look at that painting of the steam engine that was donated to us by Doncaster and are reminded that it hangs in the boardroom instead of the painting that records the finest hour in the club's history. I hope that it also reminds them conversely of possibly our lowest point so far in our history. I look forward to this demonstration being the catalyst for the actions which will see the current board members leave the club forever. If the protest were to take the form of the mass boycott which would expedite the quickest results, we could be shot of the bastards within a month.

Where's the turnaround? I hope to have dispelled the myth that bums on seats made a difference to the players by raising several counter arguments to prove that it was inconclusive as a valid argument. That is not a turnaround, although by cutting all the text outlining my arguments and making the assertion that it was, gives credence to that view to any who are not prepared to read back over those points. The valid points raised by you and Vectis Saint further muddy the waters so that it becomes even more inconclusive whether the players react positively or negatively to a full or an empty stadium. As to the expectations of the players, the players themselves had experienced mostly success in the academy and reserves and failure had been something alien to them. Personally, I don't think that Poortvliet is a successful motivator and also I think that there is a lot in what is said about the formation that he employs and how one dimensional it is tactically. You know that I agree with your assessment of Billy Davies and I believe that Nigel Pearson is from the same mould and that either of them being in charge would have produced better results than Poortvliet, mainly because both understand how football is played at this level, how to blend a team from youth and experience and also having knowledge of the personnel available to do a useful job in tough circumstances. We will rue the day that we let Pearson go, or did not appoint Billy Davies. Pearson has already demonstrated what he can do and I fully expect to witness Davies pull up Forest by their bootstrings at our expense. In the meantime, our current home form. for whatever reason, will guarantee our relegation unless drastic action is taken to remedy it. Poortvliet has not yet demonstrated the ability to address it in well over half a season.

.... and turnaround the run of home results by doubling the number of wins at a stroke? If we lose against Doncaster, the team will deserve everything that the fans throw at them if their performance has been short of 100%. If they have given their all and still failed, then that should be the catalyst for a full-blooded campaign against the the board, beginning with the call for Poortvliet to go and Lowe to fall on his sword. If the team manage a win (I won't be holding my breath), then regrettably Lowe and Poortvliet will have bought some extra breathing space. I say regrettably because the sooner abject failure rids the club of this board, the sooner we can unify the fanbase into a campaign of solidarity in pursuit of our survival. It just isn't going to occur under the current board.

I am on the other side of the World, returning late Monday, so cannot be arsed to read all the other responses. I just write to salute your arrogance in labelling those you have mentioned as being sensible and pragmatic and condemning others you have named as being knee-jerk reactionaries up their own arses. What gives you the right to consider yourself the arbiter as to who falls into what category? Nobody with any sense is living off past glories. But those who accept this and would take steps to rid the club of those charlatans who have overseen our decline from the top flight through negligence and incompetance should be applauded, not derided. You just carry on burying your head in the sand. being exactly what you moniker says on the label; a sad old git. The time for middle ground is over. They have had their chance and failed miserably. The time for drastic action is here now, before we slip still further down the divisions. If you are so blinkered that you cannot see that it is the people running the club who need to either leave, or drop this mad experiment with lower league incompetant Dutch management, then you are truly beyond redemption. As the saying goes, there are none so blind as those who will not see. And as I'm sure you realise, I'm, proud to tie my allegiances with those so called reactionaries like Fitzhugh Fella, Alpine, Stanley and Um Pahars. Also, if you cared to look at the poll on whether fans would be prepared to take action to boycott matches to rid the club of Lowe, the figures prove that you are in the company of just over 20% who would take no action. That does not mean that the 80% are right, but show us some real arrogance and label those 80% as reactionies with their heads up their arses. Go on; I know that you can do it.

It's about time we dispelled this myth once and for all that chanting against the Chairman or the board will in some way disparage the players. It might well be that they have opinions as individuals that are in tune with the majority of the fans and that they may well feel encouraged that momentum to rid the club of these charlatans on the board is gathering pace. But as an alternative to the booing of Lowe and Co, or chanting against them, the mass boycott of a match would be well publicised in the media and the players would know why the number watching was falling, in the same way that they would realise why there was such a negative atmosphere in the stadium. They have had a positive atmosphere at every home match this season and look at the sole win they have achieved as a result. It could indeed be argued that perhaps a more hostile atmospere could be beneficial on that basis, strangely. Anyway, as professional players, those worth their salt would be focussed on playing and should not be particularly aware of what is being chanted. Or there is also the possibility that some rivals' players are actually motivated by adverse chanting anyway. So how is that explained away? Taking these points into consideration, it is hard to prove the argument either way. What would be clear though that is a combination of missing bums on seats in great numbers and adverse demonstrations against Lowe and the board from those who do attend matches would produce the required results.

Welcomes Timbatop to the forum and is pleased to see that his contribution has been fairly concisely demolished by Um Pahars and CB Fry. Also wonders why I hadn't heard of cash infusions before. Usually people talk about cash injections. Perhaps it is Lowespeak picked up in the City. Is there anybody being positive about Wilde on this forum? I think that anybody who was positive about him changed their minds, whereas those who hailed Lowe as a being worth another shot have also largely changed their minds too. A combination of both of the failed chairmen back in charge is the worst possible scenario and the root cause of our current parlous state.

Old Mother Riley strikes again.The biggest girl's blouse on the refereeing circuit. I saw several replays and Paterson clearly got to the ball. But still, we're not doing badly with 10 men

You're the Neanderthal. The law of the land is plain enough even for idiots to understand. You must really be badly addicted if you can't manage to go without for a couple of hours. Blaming the fall in attendances on the smoking ban is a new one that I hadn't thought of before. No doubt he can use that as an excuse when he has his next interview with the Bank.

From what I've seen of Smith so far, he's not a player to set the World on fire. Unless he improves considerably, I can't say I'm ecstatic about him. But he's cheap, which means that Lowe rates him highly.

Did you not see the option to take no action? You are welcome to go to the next home match and shout your support and admiration for the bloke if you wish, but I warn you that like the toady at the AGM who did that, you might not be warmly applauded by those around you unless you are sat in the Director's box. You're not sat there, are you?

As we are now over halfway through the season, it is a reasonable time to make an assessment. As things stand, we are currently 9 points adrift of our total to this time last season and had managed 4 home wins to boot. Whereas the only statistic that matters is the final total after every game has been played, that shortfall is indicative of the decline we have suffered as a result of Lowe's bizarre experiment with JP. And I applaud your analogy, which is extremely apt, as we are going downhill fast and need to brace ourselves for a fall.

Yes, the atmosphere was good in the ground and I sit in the Northam, which was also giving good support. But I suspect that most were prepared to take the game as it came. As it was, the team was playing some attractive football, surprisingly, bearing in mind the selection, showing commitment and effort. Had Reading scored a couple of early goals, things would have been very different IMO. Discontent is rumbling beneath the surface like a volcano ready to blow and it won't need very much to kick off. We're now in the drop zone and if those teams around us start to lift themselves and we don't, that in itself will bring added pressure for demonstrations against our inept manager, the board, or both.

Was it a a good result? I suppose we didn't lose though, but neither did we halt the dismal run of home form, which is the worst in the history of the club. And maybe he wasn't complaining about Pearson because he was steadying the ship. With JP, he has had far more time than Pearson and the ship is sinking. Or hadn't you noticed?

It says it all really, doesn't it?

I watched every home match last season and do not recall us playing hoofball at all. This is the usual spin that is put up by those making comparisons between the ageing journeymen of last season who couldn't really give a toss and the youngsters, proud to wear the shirt, energetic, enthusiastic, playing attractive passing football...........but not quite good enough to get us three points at home. Give me last season's players every time and the number of home wins that went with them.

Why? Getting rid of the divisive element running the club will be a negative?

One of the very few games where we were actually half decent for the entire 90 minutes, but even then, to be realistic, for all of our attractive play we could still only manage one point. With all of our basement opposition picking up points on us, our position becomes ever more precarious. This was typical Saints, playing well against one of the top teams in the division and then when we have three games ahead that ought to be easier to win, just watch us lose them. So yes; attractive, entertaining football, the lads who were dire against Notts Forest and Plymouth upping their game and looking up for it and I still leave the stadium thinking good game, but so what? If we continued in this current form with home draws the rest of the season, it will not be good enough to stay up. The worst home record in our entire history, isn't it? Nothing to be proud of. And presumably Lallana and Surman, who might have made the difference between 1 point and all 3 were not played in case they picked up an injury and we couldn't sell them in a week or two. On the plus side, if Saganowski is back, he might have had a couple today, but it all depends on whether he gets a chance to play. Another plus, McGoldrick looked to be half interested today which makes a change. Hopefully he might be inspired by his goal and realise that with effort comes results.

Total and utter rubbish. You have absolutely no basis for believing that this poll is unrepresentative of the wider feelings outside of this forum. The difference between now and then is that before the club had parachute money to support it, whereas now the money from the gate receipts is virtually the only source of revenue apart from player sales. As a result, a mass boycott would have Lowe and the current board gone within days. Even if Lowe was obstinate, either his cronies would tell him the game was up, or else the bank would. Simple. And it isn't the morale of the story; it is the moral. Which even then was incorrect, as I've already said that the mass boycott is a practical alternative.

Look. This has already been discussed on another thread a few moments ago. What possesses you to raise it as a separate thread? Ego?

It is a poll, Nick. There is as much potential to vote against as for, if people felt so inclined. The poll wasn't added until quite recently and many might be elsewhere over the holiday period. Are you saying that you think that it is unrepresentative of the views of the fan base as a whole?