Wes Tender

You're the only person who responded to my question at all and are as much in the dark as me. So can somebody who knows, presumably Lordswood Saint, perhaps others, please answer what I thought were perfectly reasonable questions? What was this meeting for? Who called it and who was invited? Thank you all in anticipation of an informative reply.

I'm intrigued as to the reason for this meeting. What was it all about? Was it a board initiative as a substitute for the fans / Chairman meeting, but without the Chairman? I note that Perry MacMillan was there and possibly Richard Chorley, but who were the invites sent to? And unusual that the press were in attendance at that sort of meeting. Did the board feel that there was some need for dialogue with the fans, but were too scared to open that dialogue themselves?

Why not just put it on your favourites list? That way it's quick and easy to find.

Nick, I think that there is a vast difference between maintaining the integrity of information sent in a PM and this scenario. Any information received by me through a PM is sacrosanct, exactly as the label says, a private message between two parties only. But here we are talking about a group of individuals nominated by other interested parties on this forum to represent their interests. Firstly we have to accept that the meeting will not be minuted, which I'm sure would not be acceptable to most, but as Frank says, better to proceed anyway, as at least we can gain some insight into the thoughts of those with power and influence over matters. But are we to accept that just because Wilde asked for some information to go no further, that we are to accept that it doesn't, regardless of how important the information is? Let's consider the moral and ethical stance of Michael Quisling Wilde here as a yardstick. The self same individual who rode into SFC on his white charger promising that he would give us back our club and who 5 minutes later sides with the very person who he had come in to oust. What would be the point of a meeting like this if our representatives are first to be handicapped by no minutes and then tied by a promise that anything they are told is subject to a binding promise not to dislose it to us? Were we to ask a range of questions covering all eventualities and when we were right about something, be told "you might think that, but I couldn't possibly comment"? I'm beginning to think that it might have been better to have either refused to not have minutes or to have insisted that anything discussed was for the consumption of the forum.

I'm assuming that what you are talking about here, Frank, is the revelation that Wilde was going to cosy up with Lowe? Now, you may have decided amongst yourselves that you chose not to report it as a possibility because you did not believe that it would come to pass and also that you considered it a breach of a promise that you made to Wilde not to repeat it, if I have read the gist of your explantion correctly. But if somebody asks you not to repeat what they are about to tell you and then drops a bombshell like that, I think that there are extenuating circumstances that allow you to renege on that promise. Initially, I'd be very surprised if you didn't tell Wilde in no uncertain terms that if this came to pass, then he risked major repercussions from the fans. If Wilde thought that he could tell you such important plans and expect that you would not share them with those you represented, then it would be him who was naive. There would have been an opportunity to have made it plain to Wilde that his alliance with the Lowe faction was not acceptable to most fans and on that basis he might have chosen another path. As it is, we are stuck with them for the time being and as a result our club is in a bad mess.

They may live in the same jungle, but they will be together as separate tribes, many wearing their tribal costumes and carrying their weapons. Having imbibed the intoxicating liquor, the falling down juice in copious quantities if they should happen to meet, either by accident or by design, things could well escalate. They will begin by insulting each other with their tribal songs, somebody from one tribe will throw something at their rivals and it will progress from there. Anybody from the Saints tribe would do well to let them get on with it and kick the sh*t out of each other.

I can't believe that the £5 has much to do with it. There are perhaps a couple who will not register because they are worried that their identities might be outed, but the fiver is not much when compared with beer or fag costs; for crissakes, it's only 10p a week. As for the "constant negativity", that is often countered by some happy clappy elements, but personally I believe that many are fed up from feeling a hopelessness about the situation we currently find ourselves in. For many, they feel that the state of the club is something that they cannot change through opinions on a message board, so what's the point, as the people in charge ignore the views of the fans anyway. The only way to rid us of those parasites on the board is through a reduced revenue at the turnstiles and seemingly this is what many have decided on. The downturn in posts on the various forums just reflects the general apathy in the club at the moment. It won't improve unless we vastly improve results consistently, there is a real possibilty of a takeover, or there is anything else of importance to discuss like a change of board through changed alliances or an EGM.

For me, the situation regarding the SOS meeting is a fairly straightforward one. There should have been an insistence that the meeting be minuted. If that failed, as it did, then as far as I'm concerned, yes, it was preferable to proceed with the meeting rather than walking away, but other scenarios come into play. If the meeting had been minuted, then Wilde is entitled to ask that some disclosures he makes are off the record, but if not minuted, then IMO he has forfeited that right, as the meeting is deemed to be an informal chat and it is fair game to mention anything that was discussed. Having minutes is a two way street and as much to Wilde's benefit if he wanted to dispute anything disclosed to others afterwards. I am dumbstruck by Frank telling us only now that it was planned all that time ago that Wilde was considering an alliance with Lowe and that they were planning employing a foreign coach. Was this disclosed after the meeting and I missed it, or has it only just surfaced now? Understood that Crouch might have been sounded out about it and declined to join with the other two, but had Wilde approached Crouch to explore the alternative alliance with Crouch, sidelining Lowe and his cronies? Did Wilde naively expect that he would be popular for bringing the hated Lowe group back into play? And I wonder whether he approved of the dismissal of Pearson in favour of JP and Wotte? What was the reaction of the SOS group to this revelation about Lowe and Wilde returning? I hope that it was made crystal clear to him that it would split the fan base right down the middle and that the result might well be catastrophic if the JP management experiment with the youngsters did not work. It did not take a genius to work out that the two of them would only return under sufferance initially and that many would grasp the first opportunity to get on their backs the moment it became clear that it wasn't working. One can only hope that the Quisling has to sell his shares soon as a result of the collapse of the housing market and that they are not bought by the Lowe cabal and that that shareholding might then ally itself to Crouch. My personal preference failing a takeoever with good proper investment would be for the club to be run by a board comprising competant executive directors excluding any of the major shareholders; that way, a certain degree of unity could be achieved. Failing that, I'd grudgingly prefer a Wilde / Crouch alliance over the worst of all worlds situation we have now of two failed past chairmen which has already led to disunity and disruption and will ultimately and inevitably lead to the demise of the club.

It's a good idea, because it means that anybody like me can renew at the very instant that Lowe and Wilde and their cronies depart from running the club and still get some price advantage. It's taken them a bloody long time to think of something like this, whilst in the meantime the club was making heavy losses due to poor attendances.

Seemingly your opinion is not shared by many of the great British public, as Harry Redcrap is the only one from your list represented on the all time hated. And as your little list includes three Tory politicians, it gives me great pleasure to see that high up on the all time list is the only British politician, who happens to be Labour. (Blair) So if you're not going to bother with punching those on your list millions of times, perhaps you can assist with a few swipes at Lowe to ensure that there is something that he really excels in; antagonising people.

Well, seems that there are more people out there who despise Neil Lennon more than Rupert Lowe, as he is again back in top spot. http://www.punchaceleb.com/hit/lowe/

Are you challenging the correct translations of some of those languages, or are you disputing what the correct answer is?

Yes, sorry; 5 hours driving in total today and tired. Pearson must have been a freudian slip. This club tries to confuse us with spates of Davis' and Davies, Pearce's and Pearsons...

I had to go up country today to a birthday party at Redditch and didn't have access to a radio and only just went on the site to find out what the score was. What a pleasant surprise and all the more sweet because we came back from two down to gain all three points. It's usually been us losing to a last minute goal and this is just the sort of result that the youngsters need as a great confidence boost. They were often used to coming from behind and winning in the academy league, but I don't know whether they had that confidence to turn things around in the Fizzy Pop, but this will have given them that belief. I'm delighted that young Pearson also had a cracking game and looks a good prospect, also that Gobern did well.

Personally, I'd love to see all of them gone, but between a straight choice of Lowe and the Quisling or Crouch, I'd instantly say Crouch, because then we would have Pearson. There is not a shadow of doubt in my mind that with Pearson calling the shots with the team, we would be higher up the table than with JP. With the resultant greater attendances from winning, allied to those fans who are staying away because of Lowe, but who would attend with Crouch in charge, the club's financial position would be improved too. I also have a feeling that if he were Chairman, Crouch would put his hand in his pocket to help ease the situation, whereas of course Lowe only puts his hands in his pockets to keep them warm or to play pocket billiards

All of a sudden Lennon's catching up with Lowe, equal on 26 million. Seems that the blue few are having some fun with Redcrap, whereas we seem to have gone off the boil with the architect of our troubles.

If, if, if. If we'd had the best strikers and the best defenders in the Premiership last season, we'd be in the up there in the Premiership now. And I'd rather Pearson than JP any day.

This being a forum, it is entirely appropriate that there are many diverse opinions, so I would encourage argument and debate; pretty dull with everybody agreeing with everything everybody said. If anybody is critical of any player, the more intelligent posters will give a reason for that opinion and that opinion might be challenged by others who do not share it, which is what it is all about. Sometimes there are generalities about sections of the team, such as "our defence is crap", "our strikers couldn't score in a brothel" and I have some sympathy with those generalities and statistically it is evident that we are not scoring enough and at the same time conceding too many. But I challenge you to find many who would argue that the midfield do not generally play decent passing football. Even on this thread I don't see much argument about our ability to play a good passing game. Having identified where our weaknesses lie, is it surprising that passionate fans will criticise those who they feel are responsible for those attacking or defensive frailties and haven't addressed them sooner (Pearce), or exacerbated them (John)? To your last sentence, yes, it is always nice to hear people praising aspects of our team, but being a cynic I tend to agree with the opinion that Coleman and other managers who have done that might do so for selfish reasons, possibly as an excuse for not beating us, or more perversely because they realise it doesn't do them any harm should they wish to get a job here in the future.

The day is probably further away than when we had John here. And Rasiak and Saganowski.

Why can't the fans see it? Who are the people who have told us that we are crap at passing the ball? Most of us on here have acknowledged that we are good at passing the ball. Has anybody who has posted on this thread disputed that? Great at passing the ball, crap at putting it in the net, or defending against rivals' strikers. That is what people say. Argue against that.

There was really no point in reading any further than this as in the very first sentence you had encapsulated the very solution to all our problems, but you got some of the words in the wrong order. What is best for Saints is removing Lowe.

Thanks Delmary for posting the full article that I had quoted, what I thought was the most pertinent part of at 5.15pm. http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=3914&page=3 Post 111 :cool:

You missed out the demise of our football club from that list. That was very remiss of you, as most of the other things you listed mean less to many than that on a personal level.

Can't it be rewritten with good grammar and more sensibly defined objectives? Or does that effectively nullify the validity of it, as the signatories supported it on the basis of what was written originally? I agree wholeheartedly that it makes us look an uneducated bunch.

I came across this by Simon Jordan writing in the Guardian a couple of years back, at the time that Lowe was due to be deposed the first time around after relegation. It's still very pertinent now. That's the bottom line. If your business agenda is not aligned with the football agenda, the club can't accelerate and fans will get at you. And if you can't use fan opinion as a useful reference point to every decision - not to court popularity or go bananas Goldberg/Ridsdale style - but as a genuine, useful business guide, you'll go backwards. Lowe says, 'Criticism is part of the package of being a chairman' - a phrase that casts fans as hysterical know-nothings. I've made mistakes in my five years here, but the reason I'm not swinging from the Croydon flyover is because I've understood criticism, tried to learn from it, and can always point to my record to show my motivation is one-track. I came into the game at 32: if I hadn't made use of the natural exuberance and enthusiasm being a fan gives you, if I'd slotted into the background, kept quiet and become a boardroom nonentity, would my club have gone from administration into the Premiership within four years? What it comes down to is this. If Rupert Lowe got football, got the proles who pay him to watch it, got the reasons why he's unpopular, he wouldn't be in the hole he's in now. And that's a positive sign for the club game, a sign of its strength and ability to self-regulate. So what does Rupert do next? He could avoid quick PR fixes and try, really try, to grasp that sticking to an ego, money-driven agenda will feed the negativity. Or he could agree a sale price and go back to a life of ruddy-faced luxury. Faced with those choices, even Rupert must know his time's up.