Wes Tender

Nick, have a good holiday, which is what you are having if you are not a Yank. I might allow that you could be having a vacation if it were a holiday in America, but otherwise not.

I'm glad that at least Wilde knows the situation regarding how fans feel about him and perhaps he might even convey those feelings to Lowe. Just to make it crystal clear to them though, so that there is no room for misunderstanding; Most feel badly betrayed by Wilde, but if he cares at all for how he is perceived by us, there is still a chance for redemption if he withdraws his support for Lowe now and allows plans for others to take over the running of the club who can bring unity. As for Lowe, well, I don't think that it is exagerating things to say that he is genuinely despised by a majority of the fans who would be ecstatically happy if he left and never returned. But as to your call for the two of them to be given time to resolve the problem, then why? They are jointly the biggest architects of our current demise, both abject failures who have made matters worse since their return. Do you want them to have enough time to force the club out of business through bankruptcy, or would administration be as far as you would be prepared to allow them to take us?

I can't get myself to want the team to lose in order to get rid of Lowe and Co. But the way to get shot of the charlatans would be for the team to play Wolves in front of an empty stadium and no reason for not wanting Saints to beat them either. I accept Dubai-Phil's opinion on another thread that it would be better to have an in stadium protest such as holding up red cards, turning our backs on the board, etc, but personally I believe that the mass boycott for just one match, if really well observed, would force the board's resignation within days. If it didn't, then it would be repeated. Even if Lowe was stubborn his cohorts would probably see sense and force him to go by withdrawing their support. The protest would be on the understanding that the board was to be replaced by independent executive directors who were able and well respected rather than the major shareholders. Immediately the current board was deposed unity could be restored and a rallying cry issued for the fans to return to save the club. Nobody in charge at the moment has the moral authority to issue such a call. I liken this scenario to Trousers analogy of cutting off the gangrenous leg to save the life of the patient.

What a breath of fresh air and common sense amongst all the long-winded waffle that proceeded it. This is the simple truth of the matter. The paying public don't want to buy the product in sufficient numbers to sustain the company and it is not their fault that they feel this way. The fault lies directly with the board. Unless they can work together with the other major shareholders to put things right, then they should resign. Otherwise they will have control over nothing, as the club will be in administration. If the current board think that they can then buy the club from the admistrators and continue as before, I for one will never pay my hard-earned dosh to attend ever again until we are rid of them all for good.

Hahahaha! That's a good one It doesn't really make much sense though, as because they live in the sea, it is not exactly unusual to find damp squid. I wonder whether you meant damp squib? A squib is a firework, so a damp one wouldn't work. That would seem to make much more sense.

A masterly summary Florida Marlin.

I feel some empathy with what you say here. It is amazing isn't it that his abject failure here, getting a team of 27 years Premiership stature relegated, somehow is never mentioned, when it is still comparatively recent history as far as his CV is concerned. One wonders why it does not occur to the TV journalists when they marvel at the almost miraculous feats of turning failing clubs around how he never managed to replicate it with Saints. OK, so his heart wasn't in it. But then he should be held to account for a total lack of professionalism. He was paid good money whilst here and therefore ought to refund his pay. But as you rightly say, he doesn't have an ethical bone in his body, or he wouldn't have had the bare faced affrontery to have accepted the Freedom of the City awarded to him by Portsmouth when it was known that he had deserted that particular ship too. But Lowe and Redknapp was never going to work either. I suspect that Harry expected to be in the frame when he parted with West Ham and must have felt snubbed not to have been interviewed then, but whether he would have been a success then before he even went to the skates is a matter for conjecture. I don't think that the chemistry between him and Lowe would ever work, which from my point of view is as much Lowe's fault as Harry's.

Why does it have to be that you feel that you're defending Lowe when you admit that the club might benefit from a change of leadership, especially if the net result was a unification of the fan base? Why can't you just argue those points and posts that you think are misguided, misinformed, or factually wrong? There are some on here that manage to do that perfectly well without people labelling them as having any sort of agenda.

So you think that when AN Other that posts on here has an opinion about a good prospect that he's seen, that the club pays as much notice to that recommendation as when it comes from the biggest shareholder who also happens to be chairman of the football board? A bit naive, don't you think?

I'm way past caring too much either way. I long ago accepted it as an inevitability that any player worth having would be shipped out to whichever club (including our division rivals) wanted to buy them. That most if not all of the money raised by these sales would then disappear into the banks coffers and that those players sold would either be replaced by even younger, even greener youth from the academy, or nonentity players bought on the cheap from elsewhere in the vain hope that they might prove to be half as good as the players they replaced and then in turn sold themselves. If they could get away with it, the board would charge the same price that we used to pay to watch the Premiership giants, but as this has not worked and dwindling attendance numbers have forced their hand into making price reductions, when any sensible board would have realised what many hotels and airlines knew years ago; that it is better to fill your aircraft/hotel/stadium at reduced but attractive prices, than have it half empty at higher prices. Regrettably there is also the factor that by selling the better players who might offer better entertainment, not only will it be likely that we will be paying to watch a team that will probably be losing more frequently, but also one playing less entertainingly and with less flair and skill. Eventually, when administration happens, many will decide that their time would be better spent following the local Tyro teams for free in their local park.

I agree that finally after much pressure the penny has dropped and that the board have eventually addressed the value for money complaint. At least there might be increased turnout from those stayaways because of financial hardship. The poll is a good indicator of the number of fans who may not be attending while Lowe/Wilde remain, but until they depart and we see whether numbers rise, we will not know how many those were.

Fair point, but I'm thinking more about the visual effect of a stadium with huge gaps everywhere. Granted that there would be no loss of revenue except from perhaps concourse sales if the ST holders boycotted and they might well feel more inclined to go to the match having paid for their tickets already. But if it was seen to be the only effective way of getting shot of the board and was well orchestrated, then many ST holders might well be prepared to forego one match to make their point. Otherwise, the other possibility if it would gain more widespread support is the holding up of placards saying Lowe Out, or a repeat of the visual impact of most of the stadium standing up in support of Lowe going. But the boycott would be by far the most effective weapon if other protests fail.

I responded to your statement below:- I proved that a fair blend of Pearson's current recent teams comprised a decent number of youngsters, which disproves your contention. You've not disputed that he has a decent blend of youth in his squad, but gone off on other tangents instead. We also have some older players still at the club, like Wotton, Euell, Scacel, Killer and Thomas, so I could be mischievous and contend that JP likes to play naive inexperienced youngsters rather than the more experienced and reliable older players.

What a load of rot! If you look at the last match they played against Yeovil, there was an 18 year old, three 20 year olds and a 22 year old in the team. Pearson does what we should be doing, which is to mix youth and experience to produce the best blend. One of the oldest of their players was a certain Matt Oakley and I for one would be happy with him in our team, also Howard, who knows better where the goal is than our strikers. Pearson's team are currently top of League one and it is a distinct possibility that we might swap divisions with them this season.

At last! A ticket price that reflects that we are paying to watch the youngsters playing one of our relegation rivals. Less reason to complain about poor value for money.

A General Election is also a poll. Would you say that was also a pointless excercise because a portion of voters were died in the wool supporters of one party or another and wouldn't change their allegiances before hell froze over? This forum is like the country as a whole in that there are polarised opinions which make factions in one direction or another. Then there are those who have no particular axe to grind, but who would vote on their feelings induced by circumstances at a particular time and who might be swayed one way or the other, like floating voters. Saying that a poll should only be called when significant strides had been made for the better because opinions may change is total nonsense. The purpose of a poll is to reflect opinions at a certain moment in time based on prevailing opinions caused by current circumstances. Those who feel happy at the way the club is being run are perfectly entitled to say so, but the poll has been called now. If the club ignore the findings and aren't bothered by the falling attendances, then they can't be stupid enough not to realise that unless they do something about it, the club will be in administration. They can blame the disgruntled fans all they like, but unless they make some attempt to listen to what their "customers" are telling them, then they will have no customers and then no business.

A poll is not a pointless exercise. It is an indicator to many as to the groundswell of opinion within a group of supporters. You might argue that this forum is unrepresentative of the fanbase as a whole, but if a consensus appears between this group and other groups then it is at least indicative of fans' opinion. As such, those who run the club can choose to heed it, or ignore it. But they should understand that various factors leading to falls in attendance numbers tend to support the notion that fans are not happy with something and should accept disatisfaction with those running the club is one distinct possibility.

Ah, the World renowned English footballer Archie Gemmil.

If the Club has struck a deal with the Echo that they will be granted access to the Club hierarchy and players in return for a agreement that the Echo loses its impartiality and independence when it reports Club matters, then that stinks like a month old kipper. A local paper has a duty to report local issues with impartiality and objectivity and if it loses those ideals, then it is just a worthless collection of paper probably more useful for wrapping chips or perhaps more appropriately for use in wiping arses. If they cease to report the news without bias, then they forfeit their right to call their publication a newspaper and they might as well just make it another free distribution product paid for by the advertisers. I wonder whether they appreciate the irony that there is a parallel between their falling circulation and the falling match attendances at St Mary's. Both are caused by the arrogant disdain and contempt with which they treat their supposed customer base.

There are a couple of other scenarios that you haven't included in your list of ways that Lowe might be forced to go. You obviously forgot about the person who made it possible for him to be there again. Wilde could easily change his mind again. Although improbable, it is also not an impossibility that his stooges, Askham, Richards, etc could decide that he has become a liability and jettison him. But there is one scenario that flies directly in the face of your contention that Lowe isn't going anywhere or will not listen to us shouting that we want him out. We can force him to sit up and take notice if we have the collective will. A mass boycott, carefully orchestrated, timed for maximum impact, well publicised and supported by thousands would have repercussions in various directions. It could possibly have the bank demand that he and the current board resign. It might force his cronies to withdraw their support for him, or it could change Wilde's support away from him. The realistic viable alternative is preferably the appointment of an independent board comprising people acceptable to all of the major shareholders, but holding no shares themselves. There are people like Salz out there who are held in the highest respect nationally who I'm sure could do a very good job at running a football PLC along traditional lines rather than by risky experimentation and these people would have the moral authority to call on all Saints fans to unite and save the club they love. I'm afraid that otherwise the only alternative is an ever decreasing attendance level that will reach a point whereby the monthly losses grow to such an extent that the Bank pull the plug on the club anyway. They might give us to January when a couple of star players will be sold, but following that the numbers will diminish further anyway and we will be playing ever younger or older players in an increasingly empty stadium.

Anybody who thinks that getting rid of him will not make any difference to our results and finances is a fool. You left out the "not" Manji HTH

Go now whilst there's still time to save the club. There will never be the required unity whilst you're anything to do with running us.

Personally I think that we would have been higher up the table and playing to bigger crowds, as going on past records I believe that Pearson's loans would have been better than JP's and we would have played a better balanced mix of youngsters and experienced pros. I believe that fitness levels would be better and the defence more tightly drilled. But of course, this would never have worked with Lowe in charge, as Pearson is his own man, not a puppet yes man.

You can assure us all you like that Lowe has nothing to do with falling attendances, but unless you are able to back up your assertion with concrete facts, you are p*ssing in the wind. The truth is that nobody realistically has any evidence of how many of those staying away are doing so because of Lowe or because the football is crap. As for suggesting that the stayaways go and support some other team, then you obviously don't know the mentality of why people follow a particular club. Any who would have supported on of the glory teams would have done so long ago. As for even mentioning our local rivals as a possibility, well, my mind boggles.