Wes Tender

And so what do you deduce from that? That the forum is totally unrepresentative of the fan base? That they don't believe that Lowe had nothing to do with the message? That 95% of the people on here have no intelligence to form their own conclusions? I'm afraid that if there is some cynicism here, it is because of precedent of spin from the board on the OS.

No Nick. We want to hear them tell us that they're f'ing off.

I have the greatest respect for Killer, both as a professional footballer and as an individual. And under normal circumstances his plea would have been laudable. But he must realise if he speaks to the ordinary fans that current circumstances with the return of the two most unpopular past chairmen in the club's history means that the fan base is split right down the middle whilst they remain and that there are other pressures like the current credit crunch that are also factors in people staying away. Again, for those who state unequivocally that Lowe is in charge and there is nothing that we can do about it, that is not the case at all. He and Wilde can move aside to make way for others who are not so devisive but who could do the job equally as well or better without causing the disruption and disunity. They could then make appeals like the one that Killer has and have some validity.

What exactly is a screwny mugg? There's a whole new language out there being spawned by the Yoof, but I can't be much bothered to learn it. And just to respond in the same vein as Trousers, if I were a player I'd personally wish to play in front of 18,756 fans ideally, as I'm not quite as intimidated as he would be as a youngster.

...responding to a nob question.

Thank God that the message has finally penetrated that we needed to address our defensive frailties. Welcome to the Saints, Alex.

...and if you were a footballer, which one would you like to be?

I can see it now, Lowe standing before the team striking a Churchillian pose, cigar firmly clamped in his jaw... "We shall fight them on the training grounds and the pitches, in the reserve league and the academy league and even in the Championship. With growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our club, whatever the cost may be, so that if Southampton Football Club lasted for a thousand years, men will still say, "This was their finest hour."

It's all immaterial, as any player that's half good will go in January anyway. Unless we can keep players like him and build around them, then we stand no chance of progressing, so even if we survive this season in this division, we cannot find an endless supply of saleable youngsters worth enough to pay the bills. The spiral is going just one way; downwards.

Of course, the ones who have benefited massively were the ones on the old board, who had bought shares for £1 a piece and the value of those shareholdings increased massively. I think if I recall correctly that Askham for example had about 2500 shares which became worth well over a million after the reverse takeover had he sold them then. They're worth a lot less currently, but considering what he has gained over the years in terms of influence at the club for his £2500, I'd have gladly coughed up that amount too and I'm sure many others would too.

You'd think that as Somedunce is so adept at finding these little pearls of wisdom on the internet, that he would apply them to his own life to his personal betterment, but as actions speak louder than words, I can understand that the effort is quite beyond him.

The only workable compromise is one comprising people on the board acceptable to all of the major shareholders, but being none of them themselves.

Will it? Or will this be the story of our season that we played pretty, pretty football most matches but didn't come away with the result? This isn't the first time that teams allowed us to flatter to deceive, to pass the ball around the midfield, but to have very little cutting edge in the box. Don't they have enough shooting practice in training? Don't they practice penalties either? What exactly does Poortvliet do in those training sessions? When push comes to shove, for all of our possession and for all that Coventry were poor, the three points should have been ours. Whatever our formation was, whether 4-2-3-1, 4-1-2-2-1 or any other permutation, many of the fans and indeed the pundits reckon that we ought to play 4-4-2 home and 4-5-1 away. All season, our defence has not been strong enough to allow teams to exploit our defensive frailties by attacking from out wide, as we are simply not good enough at defending high balls from out wide. We looked half decent last night because we had a spine of tougher experienced players, from Davies to Wotton to Euell. All we lacked was the experienced striker, but hey, we loaned them all out didn't we? The three points would probably have been ours last night with John playing, as he would have tucked away more of them than McGoldrick, some of whose misses were frankly embarassing.

When John had to endure the sight of McGoldrick having more chance of hitting the corner flag than the goal, I suspect that he was fully entitled to believe that he ought to have been chosen ahead of him if fit. If the real reason was that we couldn't afford to play him because of some clause that dictated an appearance fee, then it is best that the short-sighted, ignorant fools who run the club watch helplessly as he nets a bucket load of goals for one of our rivals, whilst our cheap youngsters attempt to learn how to score goals hopefully before we are relegated.

I agree. Also the petition employed very poor grammar and I also disagree with the issue of having Crouch back in charge. I'm afraid that the petition would have more weight if as well as having many signatories it looked as if it were written in good English and made good points about why Lowe should go.

I call on JP to attend the next meeting of that Investment Bank Lowe is chairman of and give him some tips on how to run it. I'm sure his input will be welcomed by all the others there.

Just got home. Well, it was not a bad performance all things considered, but almost inevitable that we would drop two points, which we cannot afford to do if we are to survive. We started off nervously, but then so did Coventry. Once we had settled, we played some very attractive passing football, this time with some width and penetration, taking the ball behind their defence several times. But as usual, we had no teeth when it came to putting the ball in the net. For all that his goal was a good finish, the other shots from McGoldrick were completely useless and several went closer to the corner flag than the goal. You just thought that John, Rasiak or indeed Saganowski would have thrived on the service to the box today and had a hatful and it just highlights the crass stupidity of our board to loan them out and not retain one or the other. As others have said until they are blue in the face, we ought to play 2 up front and go for bust. We are never going to save ourselves with one up front, especially if it is McGoldrick. Personally, I thought Euell had a good game, providing some guidance for the youngsters and leading by example, he looked up for it, despite his long absence. With Scacel and Wotton, we at least have a bit more balance between the youngsters and the more experienced players and it showed. Of the others, Thompson did well as did Cork. Again I worry whether James is up to it at RB. Kelvin had a quiet time of it tonight, as Coventry were really quite bad and didn't threaten much, but when they did, Kelvin was comfortable and seemingly their goal was the usual defensive weakness instead of his fault. You could almost see their goal coming, as we seemed to sit back almost inviting them on to us instead of pressing forward for another. If Coventry had come back from one down and won it, then I have a suspicion that the protests against the board might have started, but as it was, they have a stay of execution until the next home game, depending on what happens between now and then.

No problem at all, Victor. Thanks,

ticket office told me just under 13000 so far, as at 1.30 today.

I'm not getting muddled at all and being as far as I'm aware the person who originally came up with the Quisling epithet, of course I knew of its historical origins. As you rightly say, because of his notoriety as one of the worst traitors, the use of his name has become common currency in usage, much as Judas has. When I said that it was purely historical coincidence that he was infamous for his connection with the Nazis, I meant that I did not raise his name to provoke that connection, anymore than I could be accused of being a religious fanatic if I called him a Judas. And thank you for telling me what I already comprehended to be the meaning of on a par too. But I disagree that the two things being discussed are on a par. i.e. not on a similar level.

The Nazi connection is purely a matter of historic coincidence, but a bit more recent history than Judas. There haven't been that many individuals historically whose actions have become a byword in the language for traitorous behaviour. If you'd care to mention others without Nazi connections, then please do and I'll happily change.

Is it on a par? One makes behavioural comparisons with the actions of a renowned traitor and the other compares to a lower life form. Quisling, Judas, traitor, others along that vein are surely fair comment, although obviously exaggerated for effect, whereas insect, rat, c*ckroach or other equivalents are surely quite different.

Arguably the two things are not mutually exclusive.

Whilst mentioning the war, instructive also to look at the part that Quisling paid in Norway's fall to the Nazis.

Nice to see you back, Frank. You ask for alternatives as if the course we are taking is the only one. Perhaps you weren't following things on here until recently, as this idea that there are no alternatives has been fully debated, in particular Um Pahars has written some very credible stuff on this subject. Just one thing that you say that I would refute. You say that any other action would lead to administration, without accepting that because of certain circumstances caused by board policy decisions, we are witnessing the considerable fall in attendances that will also in turn lead to administration.