Wes Tender

Many people were extremely disparaging about those experienced older players, telling us all that they were just journeymen, couldn't give a toss and were not bothered about us and only there to take their pay for little effort. And yet Pearson had managed to motivate them into giving a better points return then the youngsters who are enthusiastic and happy to give their all for the privilege of wearing the shirt...

Thanks for pointing out that the time had arrived whereby a genuine comparison could be made between the records of the two managers. I agree that Plymouth should not figure in NP's record, whereas JP has no similar excuse with any of his matches and also had the benefit of the closed season to prepare his team. Perhaps hypocrite is the wrong word to use with those people, but certainly it is timely to ram the comparison right down the throats of all those who disparaged NP on the basis of his record. It is also worth considering that the run of games that NP had was also a more difficult one than that faced by Poortvliet too and the number of draws NP's team had, together with the wins, throws into sharp contrast how difficult NP's team was to beat compared to the defensive powder puff team that JP has.

That's how I saw him too; totally passionate and committed with every fibre of his being. It was afterwards when he gave the post match interviews that he came across as somebody calm and collected, reasoned and intelligent. I grow more wistful for the loss of him from managing us with every match we play without him. I'm sure you're right that he wasn't the yes man that Lowelife would have tolerated and anyway he was Crouch's man, also intolerable for the ego that is Lowe.

JP was asked whether he was disappointed to lose John and whether he had any input into the decision. The poor guy was reduced to a gibbering wreck trying to bluster his way out of giving an honest answer and admitting that the decision was forced on him by Lowelife.

On the radio after the match, the question was asked as to what the turnout might be for the home match on Tuesday. Well, I for one will be going as I feel a desperate urge to be a part of a chorus of dissent against Lowe, the Quisling and all of the other charlatans in the Directors' box. I think that after the shambolic, gutless surrender today with as far as I can see only two shots on goal from us, the time has come to start chanting for Lowe to go. I really can't wait for the AGM when he can also be asked to resign as Chairman so that somebody else more capable can take over the duties. If he won't go voluntarily, then that will be the time for the mass boycott to force him out. The Bank would probably tell him to go if the attendances fell below 10,000 for a match or two. His paltry shareholding could sustain his position with the backing of his cronies's support, but his position would be unsustainable with a stadium only one third full. Let's pull the plug on him now and get shot of him once and for all.

Agree 100%. But even what we are lumbered with now is rather transient, as it is inevitable that we will be forced to sell any decent players in January, so things will decline further. Although we might redress the financial problems for a short while, the diminishing attendances will decline further as we lose more games without those quality players and therefore financial pressures will increase further, perpetuating the downward spiral. Administration is going to happen sooner or later, probably shortly after relegation, if we make it that far.

I feel truly sorry for JP who seems a nice guy, but had probably reached his potential in Holland and because of the stupidity of Lowe and his propensity for attraction to the two for one option, the never mind the quality feel the width attitude, he finds himself way out of his depth. We are struggling to keep afloat because too many of the youngsters have been thrown in at the deep end and although some swam, others sank. As talented as some of the kids are, the truth is that under a decent manager they would have been introduced into the team gradually, when they were ready. But we got rid of the decent manager when JP arrived and consequently the failing madcap experiment is not working and dwindling crowds have consigned us to a long lingering decline into the situation that we will have to sell any half decent player in January, thus further weakening the team. With Pearson and without Lowe, I'm sure that crowds would be bigger, that there would have been a better mix of youth and experience, a better defence, more points won and therefore an upward impetus rather than the sinking like a stone scenario we currently have.

I have several business clients who bled red and white and had done through thick and thin. These are people who went to most away matches as well as holding extra STs for their customers and who also paid for advertising, sponsored players etc. But to a man they hate Lowe and now the Quisling, with a vengeance for how they have ruined this club and many of them say that they will never go again whilst Lowe is in charge. As for all those saying that they will go to matches regardless of how poor the spectacle becomes, then this is precisely what the two failures rely on. If sufficient numbers decide to stay away because of the way that the board is ruining us, then administration will loom ever nearer; but it might force the board to rethink the strategy that is alienating the fans, but I wouldn't bet on Lowe or Wilde having the humility to ever think about what we might want, so if we go under then the blame will rest squarely on their shoulders. I care less with each passing day.

McGoldrick probably wouldn't score even if Swansea couldn't find a keeper and left the goal empty. He might stand a chance of scoring a penalty though.

The time is drawing ever nearer....If we are losing the next home game, I think that it will make a reappearance and there will also be Stern John chants I reckon, if the powder puff strikers fail to get anywhere scoring.

My last post at around lunchtime was tempered by the fact that at that time, it was only a rumour. Now that John going on loan is a fact, then I am truly disgusted at the incompetance of the people who run this club. I am as p*ssed off as I've ever been in all the years I've supported the Saints and for the first time I could foresee the possibility that I might yet reach the stage that I boycott the club until Lowe, Quisling, Askham and the other charlatans are all gone. I'm getting to the stage that I couldn't care less what happens any more. Thank God if it comes to it that I didn't waste my money on a ST, so there might be an upside if I do decide to stop going.

Also a decade man here too.

Ah.....the tart with a cart.

As it stands at the moment, these are unsubstantiated rumours. But if they prove to be true, then it will be a shocking thing to do, proving beyond reasonable doubt that the people who run the club really do not have a clue. John has hardly set the world on fire this season yet, because he has hardly played. But we all know that he is capable of scoring 20 goals a season if given a sustained run in the team. Both he and Rasiak have proven capable of scoring goals in this division and we already ditched Rasiak. I believe that the other striker we ditched, Saganowski, is also more capable than what remains. When these actions hasten the rush towards relegation, then the penny might drop too late that although supposedly based on financial prudence, they were the last nail in our coffin, because depriving the team of proven goalscorers and quality players not only reduces the attendance, but makes winning more difficult. The end result from spending money on a product that might either make you more money, or save you more money than that product's cost, is an alien concept to most people from a financial background. The current incumbents couldn't run a whelk stall, as they would want to sell 2nd grade whelks at oyster prices.

It obviously escapes your notice that there are several good reasons why people were happier spending their hard earned cash on watching the likes of ManUre, Arsenal,Liverpool, Chelski,etc. Quite simply, these are some of the best football teams in the World, full of stars. In case it escaped your notice, as well as not seeing those stars, we have got shot of any that we possessed and replaced most of them with kids who were the youth team and reserves last season. And yet the club want the same money to watch them as we paid to watch those Premiership stars. When we played the likes of those glory teams, invariably they would beat us, but we were good enough to escape relegation for 28 years or so. Now, here we are praying that we escape relegation form the division below. And if the players would be entitled to ask where the support was when they needed it most, then equally we would be entitled to ask what was the point when even if we gave them that support, the best of them will say ta very much, but I'm off to the Premiership to play for anybody who will give me 2/3/4 times what I'm earning here. I thought a plastic fan was one who only supported the Glory teams rather than his home club, rather than one who only supported his home club if it was in the Premiership. The true plastics are surely those who deserted us and then followed the Skates or Reading, rather than those who stopped going, often for other reasons than that we were relegated. Anyway, those reasons are the right of any individual, their choice, so I'm not going to pass judgement on them and neither should anybody else.

Do you really think that what you have written above constitutes a response for my call for you to justify your statement that Crouch wasted 10s of millions because he didn't have a clue. Reading other responses by seemingly clued up people on here, they reckon 13 -17 million. As I pointed out to you, 10s of millions has to be at least £20 million, so where did you pluck your figures from? Cloud cuckoo land? As for the rest of your last paragraph, since the club's relegation, the majority of the time we were run by either Lowe, Wilde, Wilde's executives and lastly Crouch, before the return of the two failures. Crouch had been in charge a relatively short time, but seems to be your favourite fall guy. As for now, there is no reason why the team could not be a blend of older and younger players. There was no financial imperative to play mostly the youngsters; that is just the path that Lowe chose partly through choice and not purely because of financial constraints, so your argument that we are forced down that particular path is not strictly true.

10s of millions has to mean at least 20 million plus, which is a joke. Be so good as to justify that claim, or please desist from gross exageration, lest it weakens the validity your assertions any more. We know that Wilde was supposed to be looking for outside investment the first time around and we also know that Crouch was too. What we do not know is whether Lowe and Wilde together are seeking investors. On Lowe's past record, I'm thinking not. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if as you claim Crouch presided over a situation whereby we were living beyond our means, then surely the blame lies squarely on the shoulders of the the PLC's Financial Director, David Jones, who has been the one constant through the turmoil of the past few years.

Amazed that Sad Old Git reckoned that a statement by the Club's Chief Executive saying that hopes of promotion were effectively at an end led to the decline in the team's performances from that date. I'd have thought that the statements from the manager would have had far more bearing on the team's performance myself. And what was Burley's stand on that? He lacked distinct ambition all the time he was here and in that last season the best that he ever hoped for was the play-offs. Bizarre really that our decline was all to do with what Hone said and not because we had two further managerial changes and lost arguably our three best players. If what the chief executive says has such a bearing on our fortunes, time for Lowe to announce to the World that this season we are going up, eh?

A three year plan looks laudable on paper and gives the impression of long term strategy. But most on here can spot the fatal flaws in this long term plan a mile away. There are two of them. Firstly the part where you say that they are trying to keep the younger players together as much as possible. That's just not going to happen, is it? As soon as any youngster shines, he will be off to pastures greener and there's not a lot we can do about it. On the contrary, the club would actually encourage their sale, as they are desperate for the money to keep afloat. Secondly, the policy relies on stability to succeed. Instability caused relegation due to the high turnover of managers. Managerial stability for three years just isn't going to happen with Lowe, is it? His record over the past decade speaks volumes and we will probably have another three managers by the end of the three years, so no hope of building, even if we kept the best youngsters who would assist our upward progress.

Stop discussing Fred's sexual proclivities in public!

Just what is it that you cannot grasp about this? It seems to be perfectly comprehensible to anybody with even a basic grasp of the English language.

You're right, but I expect that the non-executive chairmen aren't paid in football because of other benefits they receive such as their high profile in the sporting world, watching the game from the directors' box, the ability to play with the train set, etc. Yes, Dulieu was an exception to the rule and I had expressed disgust at it on more than one occasion. I suppose the pertinent question is whether we actually need an executive chairman, especially a part time one. But as I say, it is probably a way for Lowe to ensure that he gets some of his share value back in the event that we go under.

If you took the care to read what Alpine had actually said, instead of trying to pick holes in what you thought he had said, then you would see that he had stated that we might have a decent team when those players were fit to play.

Why? If Lowe had picked the team then he would deserve credit for swallowinig his pride and realising that his mad experiment of trying to play all youngsters outfield had failed.

I don't think that the rolly-eye thing is justified, as I have already pointed out that it is certainly not the case that every Chairman takes a wage. There is a distinct difference too between an Executive Chairman appointed by the board and a Chairman that is effectively appointed by himself because of his shareholding. But don't let these considerations influence your opinion.