Wes Tender

A great result and especially as it was a local derby and we were the first to end their unbeaten home run. Listened to the commentary on the radio and Merrington wondered why it had taken JP so long to play 4-4-2. He had picked out that right from the start that we had better options up front with the two strikers playing much closer together. It seems to me that with playing the usual formation we leave gaps out wide that are exploited, but with two lines of four we didn't allow much penetration past our back line. In the second half when Reading were going for the equaliser having pulled one back, Merrington was full of praise for the way that the midfield 4 closed down the space between the back four and crowded out Reading's forwards. The other reason why we were probably better was because we had the experience of Perry, who seems to have reached a good understanding with Cork. I can't really think of any other reason why we played so well apart from the change of formation and the steadier defence. Anyway, this win against such formidable opponents on their home ground will have given the lads a huge confidence boost and let's see whether they can keep up the momentum against Plymouth. Plymouth are quite a different sort of team and we are at home where the lads don't seem able to play quite as well as they do at home, but let's keep the same team and strategy and see if by some chance JP has found a way of getting some results.

Charlie Miller: Don't you realise the ironic contradiction here, on two levels actually? Firstly by telling him that he and people like him should be attending or else they will force the club into administration and in the next breath telling him to go and support the skates. Secondly by stating that he would be the first to moan if we went bust, which would be a nonsense if he were a Skate fan, as then he would surely be rejoicing at our demise. I know Chris and he is Saints through and through. When the club causes people like him to give up seeing Saints play, it is indicative that the troubles are extremely serious. I'm getting pretty close to that position too. Almost time for somebody to tell me to go and watch the Skates too because I'm obviously not a Saints fan either.

They might be built with limited resources, but they are managed by people who understand this division and how to either survive in it or even get out of it through promotion. Their teams are constituted of big experienced players in defence, together with big strikers up front, with a smattering of youngsters to add pace. Often they play an attacking home formation and a defensive away formation, making it difficult for the opposition to score, but hoping to pick up at least one point, if not all three by hitting back on the break. They love playing teams like ours, with our naive coach and his naive formation and they have all sussed out how one dimensional we are and stifle our attack in the last third, our sole striker being easy to neutralise. Anyway, our team comprises very little experience and most are learning how to play at this level as they go along. By the time that they adapt to what is required they will be sold and another bunch of startled rabbits will be put in front of the headlights, promoted to the first team before they are ready. The manager will not change his formation as he is as used to it as much as the players are not used to it. Lowe will not sack JP as he was his appointment and the mad experiment was also his idea and we all know that the entire world is wrong before he is. Personally, I'd rather watch a team like Plymouth winning rather than a team like Saints losing, regardless of the pretty football. Although I still put myself through the mental anguish of attending home games (for the time being, anyway), seemingly many thousands of others have reached the same conclusion and voted with their feet instead.

OK Manji. I'll take your advice and totally ignore what you say then.

Was that Turkish Lira, or Italian?

Guided Missile. You're a fine one to talk. In your thread title, "Ground sharing - it's time has come", there is no apostrophe in "its". HTH.

Your knee jerked rather violently there. I'd get it seen too if I were you.

Great bit of propaganda from the OS. Walcott sings the praises of the system of playing so many of the youngsters, but it didn't stop him leaving when a top Premiership club waved its chequebook under his nose, did it? Come on, Theo, exercise a bit of imagination and predict what will be the outcome when any half decent player gets the same opportunity that you did to earn considerably more and play in the top division. Let's hear your opinion on whether we can continue producing high quality youngsters in enough numbers to keep afloat and whether the team is improved or weakened when they are sold. Whilst you're at it, tell us how many fans have stopped going because they liked watching players like you and at the moment they are less and less likely to watch any stars in the near future because they will all be sold before they can fully develop.

Yes, I hope they do. I hope that they tell him that they have given his stupid plan a chance to show some signs of being effective, but they can plainly see that it hasn't. I hope that they see that both Lowe and Wilde are the most divisive elements that could possibly be running the club and that their policies have led directly to the considerable fall of attendances that have exacerbated the losses. I hope that they will therefore suggest to the board that Lowe and Wilde should be replaced by others who would put in place measures to turn the situation around, like adopting more conventional tried and tested methods of running the club. I suspect that we have until the January transfer window, as we will then sell as many players as possible in order to inject some cash towards the overdraught, but when the bank see that attendances will then fall further, they will be forced to make some overdue decisions.

I'm an optimist. I strongly believe that soon Lowe and all of the charlatans will be gone from this club forever and that we are therefore not far away from substantial improvement in our fortunes.

It isn't necessarily putting them up; it's a case of having them cost the same, but getting less for the money. For example, the price didn't go down when we were relegated, but Cowen justified it by saying we would get more games for it. A bit like a travel agent saying that although you had been used to going to the Maldives, he could offer you Benidorm at the same price, but would throw in 3 extra days. In our present circumstances, the current special offer is no increase, but we get to watch the Academy play, when last season we could watch those players for free. And then they wonder why the stadium is half empty, Whilst some idiots proclaim Lowe's brilliant business accumen.

Does he have to? What do we have a board and a manager for then? What the bloody hell do we pay them for? Presumably by saying that what Matty said was a good shout, you agree with it. You, me, Uncle Tom Cobbly and all. Everybody but this totally inept board and their naive manager and their policy of playing too many naive youngsters. The better way is self-evident. Sack the board who made this lunatic decision, get in a decent manager experienced in English football and getting out of this division, play a balanced blend of youngsters and older more experienced players. Simple.

I left the rest of your post, as it is reasonable opinion. But this bit here really does need challenging, as it has many times before when spouted by others. Apart from on grounds of cheapness, on what other grounds does it make any sense at all? It has been a disaster so far taking all of the games played under them in total. For all those who point at Pearson's record and say it wasn't great, we were playing many of the top teams in the division and yet his record is better than Jan's. But let's see you justify the appointment of the double Dutch with a post as long as that last one of yours but with more than just one line saying that you can't criticise their appointment because it makes sense.

All these loan players who are doing nothing, who was it who was in charge when they were signed? Lowe I think. So not surprising that he must accept some of the blame for that. And as for knocking back any offers for those players we might want to keep, that is a two way street. We could use it as a negotiating ploy to try and raise their price, but we cannot keep any player who wants to leave, just look back at the Kenwyn Jones situation. And why wouldn't they want to leave when they could earn 3/4 times more and put themselves on the big stage too?

If you want to remain in denial about the almost certainty that any player worth watching at St. Mary's will be sold in January, then keep your head firmly buried in the sand. Can you point me in the direction of any denials from the club? No. I thought not. I also dispute your opening statement and find it insulting. I have always openly admitted that I am anti-Lowe, but please don't infer that anybody who detests him is also anti the Club. The two things are not mutually inclusive.

I find a lot of what Um Pahars says to be pretty close to my thoughts if we couldn't manage to get a totally independent board. At the very least there should be an independent Chairman and Chief Executive. It might be acceptable that each of the three major shareholders / groups were represented by a non-executive director, but preferably they wouldn't themselves be on the board as they have demonstrated an inability to act together without their egos interfering. In particular, you only have to read what Wiseman has said about the way that Lowe behaves in a boardroom to realise that the best place for him is nowhere near ours when the aim is unity.

Now this is turning into a really interesting debate along the lines of possible alternatives to the suggestion that there are no alternatives to the current situation. As things stand, although some say that Lowe is the best person to run the club, many others say that because of past history and the way that things have gone since his second incarnation, that he is certainly not the best to run us, as there will not be unity whilst he has any say in things. There are others who adopt the same position over Crouch and Wilde. Accepting that the most important issue facing the club at the present time is the disunity of both the shareholders and the fans, then I suggested the independent board as a way of solving that problem. Where it is suggested that without the independent directors owning shares, they might not act in the best interests of the shareholders, why should that be so? As things stand, they have to act in the best interests of the PLC on behalf of a consensus of the shareholders. Are they to act on the behest of say the Lowe faction and totally ignore the wishes of Wilde, Crouch, Mary Corbett, etc? What is required is a board who will look at the big picture and have some notions of what needs to be done to maximise revenue whilst reducing overheads and at the same time attempting to make the team as attractive as possible to watch, but with a realistic chance of winning games and at an entrance price that will encourage greater attendances. With a change of board to one without any of the major shareholders, as I said, we might get some unity back to the club. If we were also to ditch the mad experiment and play a team comprising the best of the youngsters with a blend of experience, addressing the shortcomings in defence and attack, we could start winning some matches and gaining greater attendances. We could bury our differences and strive together to dig the club out of this hole and having avoided relegation, begin to build a team that can get us promoted next season. The ball is in Lowe and Wilde's court. Provided that they are prepared to step aside to heal the deep divisions, they can keep their shareholdings and influence some of the policy making by the board who will need to pay lip service at least to their wishes. But the club will be run along more conventional lines that have stood the test of time and the divisive elements will take a back seat in the interests of unity. If it makes them feel any better, any of the shareholders with more than a 3% shareholding can have a seat in the Director's box and maybe if they are sat together, the different factions might actually start to talk to each other.

I am happy to read a well thought out and reasoned response and whereas my opinion regarding isues like Pearson v Poortvliet differs from yours, of course the reality of who would have done the better job between them will never be known. The situation therefore of whether an independent board would have retained the services of Pearson is also conjecture. I take issue partly on whether the board would benefit from paying too much attention to what is popular with the fans. Granted that they must be free to get on with the running of affairs as that is what they are there for and they have to walk a tightrope of attempting to regain promotion at best and avoiding relegation at worst, whilst also trying to remain solvent. The only aspect of pandering to the wishes of the fans comes from the premise put crudely, that the club is a business and relies almost entirely at the moment for its income from bums on seats. Therefore the product must be priced at the right level and constitute value for money in terms of entertainment and customer satisfaction will keep them returning. But the one thing that stood out from your reply, was that you didn't poo poo the idea of an independent board to replace the current warring factions of the shareholders. I'd be interested in your thoughts on this and the opinions of others. In view of the unity of purpose that could be achieved and because it would then be possible to unite the fan base and call on them to support the club in desperate times, surely it is an avenue that we should explore as an alternative to the slow progression towards administration and relegation that we are facing presently.

And this opinion is based on what exactly? You reckon that the same players would somehow lose their ability to pass under Pearson? IMO the same players would probably be instructed to get the ball more quickly into the box and there would almost certainly be two strikers there to capitalise on it, which is an area where JP notably falls down on.

I admit that he was slated by many on here and I confess that I also had my doubts. But having seen how he acquitted himself in media interviews, I amended my viewpoint a bit and thought that unusually in football, here was a guy who knew his own mind and was able to articulate his thoughts well. Then I watched him slowly turn around a team that was on the floor confidence wise and give them some belief. He brought in some great loan players to shore up the defence and we became hard to beat. It seemed to me that the team was also much fitter than it had been under Burley too. When it became clear that Lowe/Wilde would take over, I hadn't really contemplated that Lowe would get shot of Pearson, as it would be really foolish to do so, being as he had proven to be effective and was popular with the fans. I reiterate that. There was a poll on here to establish his popularity and it was a very high satisfaction rating. I am certain that Lowe getting rid of Pearson has exacerbated the low attendance figures, which have subsequently declined further with the failure so far of the mad experiment implemented by Lowe and JP. Total conjecture, but I have no doubt in my mind that Pearson would have us higher up the table than naive Jan, even under the same team circumstances.

As far as I'm aware, the 40% only comes into play if Wilde supports them. Otherwise it's well below 30%, isn't it?

I totally agree with you. I've said many times that you know that you've won the argument when your oponent has to resort to petty insults or name calling instead of countering your arguments with their own. But as I said, those people are entitled to express those opinions, even if they might be juvenile or lacking in substance. There are measures in place on the forum that prohibit the use of extreme personal attacks, so if you dislike the other stuff, either just ignore it or respond in a sarcastic vein praising the obvious intelligence of the poster. Otherwise a bit of humour is good too. In response to the "hello Rupert" comment, why not a response of "hello Leon" for example? But overall, current opinions on here are natuarally going to generally be anti-Lowe and Wilde unless things improve.

Lowe is NOT a major shareholder. He actually only owns less than 6% of the shares. He's a minnow in the scheme of things. He only has any clout because of his cronies' alliance and the Quisling's.

The Red Bag & Saint Donkey As this is a forum, people raise topics for debate and others respond to them. Inevitably there is potential for some of the threads to be controversial, thought provoking, inspirational, just plain stupid or wind ups. The same goes for the replies. If somebody is put off coming on the board because they don't like the tone of it, then they are perfectly entitled to post their own thoughts and if they argue their corner and viewpoint intelligently and cogently, then they might change the opinions of some, or at least get others to accept grudgingly that they have a point. Otherwise, they are entitled to seek out another forum that more closely mirrors their own viewpoints, but firstly it is unlikely that they will find one, as this forum is probably pretty representative of fans' opninions, but secondly, surely it would be boring having universal agreement on everything. Provided that everybody accepts that anybody else is entitled to have their own opinion and that those opinions have equal validity, then there should be no problems.

The current board don't necessarily have a mandate either. What if Wilde disagrees with a decision by Lowe? Does he tell Lowe that Crouch would have been with him and that therefore the shareholdings of the two of them would outvote Lowe's cabal? The essence of having an independent board comprised of people respected not only locally but nationally for their sharp business accumen would mean that most would accept that any decisions taken by them, although perhaps unpalateable for some, would be for the good of the club and not based on petty spite and ego as now. If any decision is proposed that any major shareholder disagrees with, then as now, they can register their disapproval with the board and naturally if the number of shares represented by those individuals together forms a majority opinion, then the board would be obliged to act in accordance with the wishes of those shareholders. Just to speculate a bit on a hypothetical situation, could you see such a board proposing that we jettisoned a manager who in a short time had made marked improvements to a failing team and was popular with the fans? Could you then see them replacing him with somebody who was a relatively unknown foreigner, totally inexperienced in British football and at a lower level in his native country anyway? Regarding having one decent striker from the three that we used to have until we loaned them out, yes, they might get injured, in much the same way that McGoldrick might too. But like you, I believe that it would be nice to have a striker here who knows where the net is and has a proven ability of scoring goals with regularity.