Wes Tender

I agree that some perspective needs to be maintained, which is why although the youngsters will gain experience and strength and awareness and understanding of their colleagues, all of which should improve results, there are a couple of flies in the ointment. Home results have to improve, as 1 win at home nearly halfway through the season is diabolical. If it is a psychological thing, then it needs to be overcome. Otherwise, it is a tactical thing that needs to be addressed by Poortvliet. Obviously we cannot get anywhere near the play-offs unless we start winning home games. And in any event, whilst we're agreeing that perspective must be maintained, although the team will gain strength with time and experience, in a few weeks time, players vital to the quality of the squad will have to be sold to balance the books, putting us firmly back at square one, their replacements requiring time to build up strength, experience and understanding, etc.

It took me how long? Did you have your little mickey mouse stopwatch on it? It might surprise you to know that others have a life other than on here and just pop on from time to time as their schedules permit. As I said before, the point is that I challenged you to substantiate disparaging remarks you made about other posters knowledge about what they wrote on this thread, or to shut up. You have proven that you cannot pick fault with anything so far and are having to resort to juvenile responses instead. Don't you have homework to do?

Ah. So you're all mouth. And your contention that the sum total knowledge of all who posted on this subject could be written on the back of a postage stamp is totally without foundation. It didn't touch a nerve; I just don't like posters disparaging others by saying that their opinions are garbage without explaining why. It is a very easy thing to do, but more difficult to sunstantiate, as you have found out. And your last two sentences are contradictory, unless you would laugh at something not knowing why it was funny. But I could believe that too.

And by the way, Nickh, the running track was not to have been around the stadium, but part of the separate complex of the Sports Centre that EBC would have had built. Logically, of course the cost of building the stadium with a running track around a pitch is higher than one without, as naturally the stadium itself has to be bigger to accommodate it.

If in your opinion the sum of our knowledge can be written on the back of a postage stamp, then no doubt you will kindly enlighten us where we have gone wrong in our posts with your dazzling expertise on the subject. Unless we receive this information together with the backing that gives it gravitas as being factual, then we will be forced to conclude that you are ignorant of the goings on and just trying to be the know it all. Which is it? Put up or shut up.

...As is your blinkered positive view. As they say, there's none so blind as those who will not see.

Nick, Did you not read my post detailing the other items that EBC would have been happy for us to build on the site? So I feel perfectly vindicated in accusing Lowe for the failure to proceed with the Stoneham project on the basis that he was intransigent over wanting the two things that EBC could never grant as revenue streams. Having spoken at length with Roberto Tambino (EBC's officer in charge of the project), with others who were concerned about how the club were approaching Stoneham, we gained a detailed perspective of EBC's stance on this. The site was to have been the Southern equivalent of the Crystal Palace and Gateshead Sports centres with the Stadium as the centrepiece. On that basis, other things like luxury hotels, restaurants, night clubs, ice rinks, bowling alleys etc would have added to the amenities that would dovetail with such an enterprise. Granted that Freddy Emery-Wallis and Hampshire County Council were against it but with Southampton Council and EBC for it, it could have gone to Central Government for a decision, where I'm certain that Prescott would have rubber stamped it. Anyway, water under the bridge now, but I won't have posters who don't know what they're talking about attempting to make out that getting us St. Mary's was down to Lowe when it was him that failed to get us Stoneham and Southampton City Council who gave us St Mary's.

I think that the problem moreover is that the people who are running/ruining the club are the ones who do so more from the perspective of manufacturers of flat pack wardrobes rather than a football club that is the heart and soul of the community. They have expected our loyal support on that basis and are starting to see that their customer base has no more obligation to buy their product than MFI's customers did.

Agree entirely. In the event of Administration, they would have a duty to allow the people to take over who had the best chance of making a going concern of it. Firstly Lowe and Wilde have not exactly covered themselves with glory by what they did after they returned and their bizarre policy could be directly attributable to our collapse. Secondly, I'm sure that the fan base will make it abundantly clear to the Administrators that if Lowe or Wilde take over, that many will not support them by attending. It would be under those circumstances that I would stop going to matches, that's for certain.

What the heck are you waffling on about now? Kindly explain to us all how a stadium at Stoneham without add-ons is not financially viable, whereas one at St Mary's is? In fact, Stoneham could have had add-ons as I have already explained, but of course they were not the ones that Lowe wanted. I just know that you've lost the argument because of the bluster and hot air that you're putting out.

You refuse to admit here that you have had the ground taken from under your feet by GM and Um as well as me. The two things mentioned in the article that GM kindly posted would never be allowable, especially as EBC had plans to site the cinema at the Swan Centre (it is currently under construction there) and it would have been commercial suicide to have also had such a large retail facility so close to the Town centre. For all Lowe's supposed business accumen, he was extremely naive about wanting those two things. Instead, as I have listed before, there were several things that EBC would have allowed, such as a large 4* Hotel, a Bowling Alley, Ice Rink, Night Club, Plant Hollywood or similar, a large Sports superstore, etc. Without those things, it would have been just a stadium, whereas what do we have now? Just a stadium. Lowe went for St Mary's because he had fallen out with EBC and his ego didn't allow him to eat humble pie. He went for St Mary's because The Dell was too small and there was no other alternative to the site offered to him by Southampton city Council to save his bacon. But as for financial viability of the two projects, kindly explain to me why just a stadium is viable financially at St. Mary's, but just a stadium is not financially viable at Stoneham? It wasn't a case with Stoneham of mere financial viability; it was a case of a stonking profit that he wanted and probably jobs for the boys with the development along the way too. But as mentioned, the Stoneham project could have been so much more had Lowe not fallen out with EBC through his arrogance and getting up the noses of those who he needed to get onside. How dumb do you have to be not to see all this?

You have part of the story, but the important bits you gloss over or fail to acknowledge. Yes Lowe pulled the plug on Stoneham. Yes Southampton City Council helped with St Mary's. Lowe pulled the plug on Stoneham because the economics did not stand up. You can bluster on about what could or could not have been done to improve the Stoneham economics, but you have no figures and are just ****ing in the wind. If it made economic sense Lowe would have gone for it, exactly as he did with St Mary's. At the end of the day we ended up with a far better deal at St Mary's and your only concern is that we knocked back a far worse deal at Stoneham? Where exactly are your priorities here? By your analysis we should have moved from the Dell irrespective of cost, priceless. You can join Tom as somebody who doesn't know the full inside story about Stoneham, either that or your memory has faded. Lowe didn't pull the plug on Stoneham. Eastleigh Borough Council and Hampshire County Council did. EBC could not allow the two things that Lowe had insisted on to help finance the project; a multi-screen cinema and a shopping centre the size of Asda at Chandlers Ford. There were several other things that could have been allowed permission to help finance the project, but Lowe insisted on those two things and it all fell through. So if you think that Lowe pulled the plug on it, it is you who are p*ssing in the wind. Lowe went for St. Mary's not so much because it made economic sense, but because it was the ONLY option, granted to him by Southampton City Council. Even then he tried to **** them off over that insisting that they pay for some of the infrastructure. If you believe that St. Marys' is better deal than Stoneham would have been, then you're a bigger idiot than I thought.

I counted two or three that failed to beat the first man and there really is no excuse for it. Perhaps we ought to have Pearce tell the lads the secret of scoring from headers, as his record seems very good. But it would help if we had some tall, big strikers up front, or somebody like Pearce from the defence who actually knows how to head a ball from a corner in the event that the delivered ball is a good one.

Yes.

Leaving aside the main debate for a moment. Why did you accept the flat beer? Surely you should have refused it, as was your right. Interesting to observe that because people are prepared to accept shoddy goods and not refuse to pay for them, Reading FC will continue to sell flat beer, whereas if they had numerous people refusing to pay for it, they would very soon rectify the problem. Do you see any parallels with the fare on offer at our Club, perchance? One is entirely entitled to complain if the product is not of good quality or too expensive, but if not enough complain it will be taken as a sign that most find it acceptable. It is a problem with the British. You go to a restaurant and eat a poor meal. The waiter or proprietor asks whether everything was alright and you mumble "Fine thanks". Then on the way out, you mumble "That was awful. We won't go there again" That is precisely the situation at our Club and why attendances have fallen to this level.

Absolutely correct. And as for those who state that others who cannot attend because of reasons of cost or distance are not true fans, that is absurd and not even worth acknowledging. Counter to the flawed argument that if one can attend and choose not to, one is not a true fan, it can be argued that those who perceive that the club is being badly run and campaign actively to remove those responsible are actually better fans than those who tacitly support the regime that might cause the club to go out of business by doing nothing. That is the other side of the coin. The board relies on the blind devotion of a certain number who will attend regardless of how poor the fare is on display, regardless of whether the price is poor value, regardless of how badly they run the club, just because they are fans. Well, seemingly they have badly misjudged the fans, unless of course they had budgeted for attendances of sub 15,000, which I doubt.

Firstly, there are alternatives. If you don't wish to acknowledge them, fine, that is your prerogative. Secondly, because you feel there are no viable alternatives, that does not mean that you have to support Lowe and JP. So now that we know that you are a Lowe supporter, we will take all your posts as being biased in his favour and judge them accordingly.

Thanks UM; it saves me a lot of effort, as you have answered comprehensively all the points that Tom had made in response. So it seems that although Tom thought that I had somehow contradicted myself, he hasn't proved where yet. As you say, he certainly doesn't appear to know his facts about the Stoneham project. I had taken the trouble to find out about that from speaking to officers at Eastleigh Borough Council and it is indisputable that had not Southampton City Council bailed out Lowe after Stoneham collapsed, we would not have had anywhere to go. Tom says that he prefers St. Mary's to the Stoneham proposal anyway, but Stoneham could have had several other facets to it that would have made it a better investment prospect for a takeover. And just for the record, yes, I did prefer watching those matches under Pearson to those under Poortvliet and believe that had he remained, I reckon that he would have got us higher up the table than Poortvliet, even with the same restrictions and personnel availability. Each to their own, I suppose.

I am the one gazing at reality. You are the one wearing the rose-tinted glasses. Wilde has proved already to be capable of turning about and stabbing his former allies in the back. Who is to say that he won't do it again? I am on record as saying on more than one occasion that I would be happiest if they all went.

Puerile and juvenile. The PLC board chairman only has 6% of the shares, so when you are talking about shareholders' alliances, there are only a couple of them who have anything like a reasonable amount and they are Wilde and Crouch. Everybody else is a small shareholder. Of course it is all in my head, the same as what you said is in your head There will almost certainly have to be a change of board in the event of administration, so if you do not possess enough imagination to foresee that similar changes to the board could take place before that eventuality, then it is you who is lacking something.

The onus is on you to do the digging, not me. The issue was covered by posts contained in threads covering various related subjects similar to this one. What I'm getting at is that it doesn't necessarily require a takeover, although that would obviously be the best case scenario if major investment were made available. There are possible other variations of control involving other major shareholders in various alliances, directors appointed to represent the various factions but not involving those divisive people themselves and also the appointment of independent directors.

Just as nothing that he said was very believable and was also his opinion not facts....

You obviously don't read many of the other threads that have covered the alternatives to Lowe. Do a little research before you come up with the wrong angle about it.

Well, I just have disagreed with it and it was pretty easy IMO. And all of this "he is the best of the current bunch of possible people" is also a load of bunk too. It's been debated often enough, so I can't really be bothered to go over it again.

I get behind the team at all home matches so far. But I regret that I will not get behind the club when the two most divisive elements in its history are running it.