Wes Tender

Amazing that when Alpine shows a bit of diffidence, you accuse him of arrogance. I hope that a lesson learned after last night is that a blend of older, experienced players with the youngsters is beneficial. And the lesson from the Watford game is that we ought to play 4-4-2 at home.

What is the relevance of a comparison between most of us who have to work and those who are wealthy enough not to have to? Crouch didn't get paid, so why should Lowe or Wilde? Many Club Chairmen don't take pay; it's not anything unusual in this industry. Many consider it a privilege to be able to play with their own private little "train set". But Lowe and Wilde can look at their pay as a way of recouping some of the value of their shares as a partial insurance against the losses they would incur if we went into administration.

We would have lost by three or four tonight had not Kelvin made some stunning saves yet again. He must be in the form of his life and all credit to the guy for not allowing the flack he got from us and from Sunderland to get him down.

Well done the lads. Especially Kelvin Davies again, who kept us in it with a string of super saves. Thank God that we also had the experience of Perry back in the centre of defence and also the quality of Cork at RB. Lovely to see Scacel back to add his quality and experience too, but what was going on with playing him at LB with Mills ahead of him? Granted that he had played there before a few times, but surely it would have been better with Mills as the dedicated LB and Scacel experienced enough to have tracked back to give him cover, but also able to foray forward for added impetus. We had good possession with the extra man in midfield, but as with all clever managers, they sussed us out by halftime and made the tactical changes that nullified us and from then on it was all hands to the pumps. But tonight we had lady luck smiling on us for once and also an ex-striker didn't come back to haunt us. Sad that Lancashire earned himself another Red and therefore puts pressure on his colleagues when the defence will be weakened for the next three matches without him. But apart from Mills ahead of Scacel and seemingly no tactical answer to gain any advantage over United's response to our midfield superiority, a clean sheet and an away point against a good strong team is creditable. But one man up front and attempt to hit them on the break is fine away, but two up front at home please.

Yes, you're right in all that you say, broadly. But the pertinent part is that highlighted. Effectively the PLC is now only the football club to all intents and purposes, whereas previously it was also other ancilliary things too. Therefore virtually the sole income of the PLC is derived through the revenue generated by ticket sales to watch the football. Sure they can rely (and do)on a certain percentage of their customers to attend no matter who is in charge and regardless of price within reasonable boundaries. But as you acknowledge, there has to be a certain number of bums per seat averaged out over the season to make ends meet. If because of the board's actions, the number of attendees falls dramatically as a result of either their pricing policy or the fare on offer being deemed to be very poor, then the blame attaches to the board, who will have failed to act in the best interests of the shareholders and the PLC. As for the shareholders, I am one, although having a very small number of shares, also my son. What would be interesting though is a resolution put to the AGM deploring the route that has been taken by this current board and asking them to explain their strategy of relying too heavily on the youngsters and the employment of management inexperienced at this level in this country. But as for your last line, effectively that if we don't like it we have to lump it, then of course we do not. If the board thought along the same lines as you, then they might have to undergo a rude awakening if sufficient number of fans decided that they had had enough of the board. They cannot survive without our support at a certain level and they had better not forget that.

I cannot believe that Lowe's smarmy visage hasn't taken enough punishment that he does not appear on the list of the week's top victims. Has everybody taken to punching Arry Redcrap instead?

What exactly do we deserve, us fans? Let's just take the football. We pay a ticket or ST price that is not the lowest, so we deserve to watch football of a certain standard commensurate with at least an average team in our division. If some feel that they are not getting that, they are perfectly entitled to stay away. What are we entitled to expect from our directors? After all, they are the custodians of our club and yet the main body of power lies with the shareholders involved in a morally bankrupt reverse takeover and an unholy alliance between two failed former chairmen. If that board has not put any of their own money into the club other than through the purchase of shares to buy their seats in the Directors' box, then we are perfectly entitled to be angry when their inadequacies are sending the club we love in a downward spiral. You might argue that the club gets the fans it deserves, but what have we done to deserve the Directors we have?

The saving of a few quid a game is unimportant to me, as I can afford it, although increasingly what I witness for the £48 it costs for me and my son is increasingly an irritation. But now I'm really glad that I didn't renew our STs because of Lowe's return with the Quisling, as I have the satisfaction of knowing that they do not have my money up front and that at any time we can just stop going if we wish, stopping any further income from us if we feel that we no longer enjoy going. If things continue the way they are, the chorus of opinions from people saying that they would rather watch the kids than those overpaid journeymen will diminish as the penny drops that it is not possible to play the ratio of kids that we do and progress. The penny will drop too with a resounding clang in January when those players that we did think were worth watching, are all sold, to be replaced by yet younger and more inexperienced kids. Although Lowe and the Quisling backed by their faction of toadies have a majority on the board that cannot be overturned if they act in concert, that does not mean that they cannot be ousted from the board in this status quo situation. In fact, it does not even mean that they have to comprise the board. There are other people who could form the board as Hone, Hoos and Dulieu did and it is simply a matter of forcing Lowe, Wilde and their henchmen off the board. At least one benefit of making that change would be to oust the two most devisive elements in the club's history from the day to day running of the club, which might encourage more to attend matches. Perhaps if things continue the way that they are, we ought to concentrate our minds on forcing these changes. As a weapon of last resort, a mass boycott of just one match, if rigorously applied, would almost certainly have the desired effect if it was made crystal clear that the board was required to resign to be replaced by others. Pressure would be put on the board by the Bank and there would also be the pressure of the board losing the value of their share investments, as clearly any repeat boycotts would soon tip the club over the edge financially. I stress that this is the equivalent of the nuclear option, the weapon of last resort. It might well be that the board might come to their senses and realise that the crazy experiment is not working and make the changes to the management or the team that will stop our decline. But if they don't address the situation soon, an increasingly exasperated fanbase should at least know that as things stand currently, they do have the power to force change. You would have thought that once the board realise that we might be forced to use that power, that they would treat us with a bit more respect. As with the nuclear option, most times it is sufficient to have the threat of it to ensure that you never have to use it. But we ought to let the board know that we are at least intelligent enough to realise that we have this weapon in our armoury and would be prepared to use it under certain circumstances. That ought to concentrate their minds.

I've only just read this thread and must say that I have the utmost sympathy with this spur of the moment action by St Jason and also the guy who threw his shirt on the pitch in front of the Northam. I confess that I was really surprised that there wasn't a sustained chorus of "swing Lowe" at the match end. Like some others, I have been against those charlatans on the board who arrived at the reverse takeover and those who allowed the morally bankrupt deal to proceed whilst ignoring other consortia who were allegedly wishing to buy into the club, because the reverse takeover was the way that benefited the old board most financially. So I'm not in the Johnny come lately camp either. I suspect that the tolerance level of most supporters is being strained to the limits and I predict that if there is not an improvement by the end of the next home game against Coventry, then I believe that a serious campaign to oust Lowe and Wilde will commence.

If we're better than Barnsley, then we really should have beaten them at home, shouldn't we?

Don't you just love this selective praise? So Pearson only succeeded because Leicester and Coventry failed to pick up points in their matches? Equally we wouldn't have been in the relegation zone either had we not dropped winnable points when either GB, Dodd and Gormless were in charge either before Pearson even arrived. If, if, if.

Spot on. I said at the time that if Lowe kept on NP, it would be an insurance for him, as he could have stated that the fans had been happy with him and if it all went tits up, then he couldn't have been blamed. But no, Lowe wanted to gamble with a much more experimental set-up, hoping that if that succeeded he would get all of the plaudits instead of just the reflected glory from a choice by Crouch. And that is the crux of the matter; that Pearson was Crouch's appointment.

Surely it is inevitable that with every reverse we suffer, there will be voices calling for Lowe and Wilde to go, especially bearing in mind their past contributions to our current predicament. So do you really have to ask why we have to have this every week? Is it really that surprising? I am amused by the mental picture conjured up of a baying mob on the internet. I wonder whether the picture that you might conjure up coincides with mine? I see a bloodthirsty crowd reminiscent of the French Revolution circa 1789, armed with pitch forks and sticks, charging through the streets in search of the aristos, throwing them in the Bastille to await Le Guillotine. What picture does anybody else conjure up? And isn't it inevitable that there are clearer thinkers who realise how stupid it is to want the current incumbents gone from the club without having a viable alternative in mind? So pleasing to know that there are these more sensible people in our fanbase, but disappointing that they only exist because they follow one viewpoint, that a viable alternative has to be present before anybody can express a valid opinion on the current failures ruining the club. Several sensible people have answered this question of what alternatives there were/are to this regime, but seemingly their comments have gone largely unnoticed if they don't happen to coincide with the opinions of those who believe that there is no alternative to the current situation. Of course we would be more attractive to investors if we had larger attendances, thus lower debt levels, but whose fault is it that the attendances are lower? People wil only come if they think that they can afford it, that it is good entertainment and good value. If they decline to come if they are dissatisfied with any of those reasons, then whose fault is that? The fans or the board? And if Crouch was no better than the current dismal duo, then why change from him unless the alternative was an improvement? It's beginning to look as if his appointment of NP was a lot more promising than the appointment of JP.

Let's just take this little in isolation and let's see if anybody can spot where the contradiction has crept in against the background of other assertions by Somedunce that it is all the fans' fault for not attending. Let's summarise it; unpopular chairman, arrogant, won't do what the fans want. Bearing in mind that without other revenue streams that we used to have before Lowe got us relegated, that attendances are the single most important source of income, it isn't exactly an encouragement for people to attend when added to the lack of results on the pitch, is it? And people can rant and rave as much as they like about the people who stay away for whatever reason, but ultimately it is their choice. Any business that alienates its customers soon ceases to be a business; that is a basic fact. And by the by; what evidence do you have to support your statement that Lowe will do what is right? I might accept that he will do what he thinks is right, but that isn't quite the same thing, is it? I'm sure that Crouch did what he thought was right, so are we to have one rule for him and another for Crouch?

I was casting an envious eye over their defensive record. Only 6 goals conceded in 10 games. Contrast that with the 18 we let in over 11 games. Pearson had made good progress in shoring up our defence during the short time he was here. Seems that although both Pearson and Poortvliet were defenders in their footballing careers, Pearson is the one who appears to know more about marshalling a decent defence as a manager. Providing that he was actually given a free hand under Lowe / Quisling (accepting the budget retraints that he would have been put under), I am far more confident that he would have been able to come up with a better defence than we currently have.

We're going to get tonked by them. I would imagine that if we don't pick up anything from that match and nothing against Swansea, that if things are going badly against Coventry in our next home match, things are going to get very ugly in terms of crowd dissent and protests against the Board and manager.

Something needs to be done about it and soon. Thank God the match wasn't televised, as we are enough of a laughing stock already. Both attempts were absolutely pathetic, a complete embarassment.

Your argument is so full of holes that it would make a sieve look watertight. This season is only about starting again because the egos of the various protagonists collide every time. The disruption that is the main cause of our current malaise is a direct result of this. The rot is largely as a result of the same two people who now run the club again. None of us know more about running a football club or earn more than Lowe for what reason particularly? Please explain. Presumably because Crouch is worth a great deal more than Lowe, he is better qualified to run the club than Lowe. Are we only to accept opinions based on our success in business, or involvement in football in a professional capacity? Or would you grant that as paying customers of a product in the entertainment industry that we are fully entitled to express criticism if we are disatisfied? Yes, of course he's here to protect his investment; but probably also to restore his badly damaged ego and reputation in his professional sphere after his last dismal failure. As for your assertion that football fans know nothing about business, this is very reminiscent of Scooby's attitude that we are are a bunch of flat caps, or Lowe calling us Neanderthals. It is arrogance, pure and simple. You obviously don't realise that many Saints fans run their own businesses, as I do. I suspect that there are many who post on here who are the same, or at least are very aware of how a business works. For all your assurance that Lowe and the Quisling ought to know enough about business, then why do they make such mistakes running this business and show such contempt for the very lifeblood of this Club by treating its customers in such contempt?

Yes, of course you're right. I knew it wouldn't feel any better, but frankly, I couldn't be arsed to stay up, especially having watched Match of the Day and reminded myself again just how far we've fallen. For all those who make excuses for being happy at the effort and commitment the youngsters put in, then there was plenty of that on show in large parts of the game; well, until the last twenty minutes at least. The football they played for 15/20 minutes after the break when the damage had already been done was often glorious, but this was mainly the midfield showing that there is some talent there. But we are going to be relegated unless the defence is completely improved by experienced, bigger players in on loan immediately. And it is completely useless passing the ball around prettily in midfield if there are not players of ability to put it into the net when playing teams with defences as poor as Watford's. Missing one penalty could be dismissed as bad luck, but missing two begins to look like carelessness, to paraphrase Wilde. (No, not you, Quisling) What a shame that since we failed to progress in such an important match as the play-offs a couple of seasons ago, it has apparently not been deemed important enough for us to practice penalties in training so that several players are experts. With two goals scored by us, the match might have had a different perspective to it and at least some air of respectability, but 3-0 is totally unacceptable. The time is fast approaching that something needs to be done to put things right as a matter of urgency. If the defensive weaknesses are not addressed right now with decent loan cover and we continue to follow this current pattern, then the board need to be made aware in no uncertain terms that we have had enough of them and their mad experiment. I am begining to feel that not renewing my and my son's STs was a good move as it is quite possible that after games like that, I might well do what was unthinkable for me and cease attending matches, as it begins to seem as if there are better things to spend £48 on than watching the youngsters gain experience, only to have the better ones sold on in January.

I'm off to bed and coming back on here tomorrow morning when I've calmed down....

Not entirely, although those two failures leaving would undoubtedly be the best solution to the problem of disunity that is hampering our forward progress. But I've said many times that something also needs to be done about pricing before those who claim that they do not come to matches because they do not see it as good value will return. The debate on prices has made interesting reading with several good points made and some useful suggestions. But a couple of things that Steve touched on here help to highlight the problem. Why should there be a hierarchy of games in the Premiership and not one in the Fizzy pop league? Why should it cost the same to watch Birmingham or Reading as it does to watch Doncaster or Blackpool? But the problem goes even deeper than that. The board want to charge the same rate as if the matches were against Premiership opposition, exactly as they did after relegation, but attempting to comfort us that we would get and extra 4 games for free. On the basis that Premiership prices were either Gold, Silver, or Bronze, then prices now ought to be Brass, Copper or Tin, if I've got that in the right order. And then some allowance should be made that the team has been robbed of the established bigger names and substituted with last year's youngsters who could have been watched playing a year ago for free. And the fact that the club has made it clear that they are in no position to put prices down for any games just goes to prove what a bunch of unimaginative people that we have running our club. There have been several good suggestions of ways that offers could be made that would generate some positive results, but if they're too short-sighted to see it, then the sooner they're gone, the better.

I'll play amateur psychiatrist and hazzard a couple of guesses as to why Lowe and indeed Wilde battle it out when the flack they get from all quarters would have had most people kissing the whole thing goodbye at the earliest opportunity. IMO when people talk about Lowe being in it for the money, I prefer to think in terms of the money invested in his shares rather than what he earns for his two days a week. Neither Lowe nor Wilde are that wealthy that they can just shrug their shoulders at the financial losses they would make if the club went into administration, so that is good enough reason for them both to make an attempt to keep the club afloat until such times as it can hopefully be sold at a price that rewards them for holding out. In the meantime, it is not costing them money to keep treading water as neither of them is putting in one penny more into the club. But again it is my opinion that when Lowe left in ignominy, his ego and reputation amongst his contempories in the business world he used to inhabit and whose respect he would like to earn, took a nose dive. I believe that almost as much as the desire to protect his shares, his motivation was to restore his tarnished reputation he had in the City as an achiever, an innovator, a high flyer. Unfortunately, football is not like most other businesses and even after a decade of involvement, there are several areas of it that I think he does not fully understand. I still feel that there were other sensible courses open to him, but he had to go down the route of the massive gamble, coming straight out of left field, hoping against hope that if the experiment came up trumps, it would be all the more spectacular and his reputation would be enhanced and restored as somebody capable of achieving success through thinking outside the box. Provided that we don't go into administration, he can carry on with the experiment, just keeping the club ticking over, hoping that the players will grow and develop into a team that might eventually gain us promotion. But it won't happen, because we will have to sell any of the decent players to pay the bills. But Lowe and the Quisling can still harbour some hopes that eventually somebody will try and buy the club and provided they get something half decent for their shares, they can leave with some dignity.

Using Wilde as an example of what happens when you get what you wish for is a bit wide of the mark. Granted he filled the criteria of being somebody in charge of the club who wasn't Lowe, but he failed the other criteria necessary, that he brought no investment in the club other than his purchase of shares and Lowe and his cohorts still remained in the background. Now we have the worst of both worlds, Wilde being Lowe's Poodle and their joint shareholding being harder to displace than previously. And it is wrong to say there are no quick fixes. A takeover by people with serious money to buy the best players would get us out of this division in one season, having hired the services of a brilliant manager along the way. I know it won't probably happen, but it couldn't be written off with a broad sweeping statement saying there are no quick fixes. Obscene amounts of money are almost a sure fired guarantee of success, just as a total lack of money is almost certainly going to lead to decline and failure. Regrettably we are in that latter situation currently. Even cutting our cloth according to our means doesn't even assure our future playing in the fizzy pop league, as any player worth having will be a target for richer clubs and will be gone. It might take some time, but eventually further relegation is inevitable under those circumstances, as we will never be able to sustain the development and growth of the team to progress.

Unfortunately the Saints Trust isn't well enough represented by a membership of sufficient size to issue a rallying cry holding much validity. Lowe and the Quisling are held responsible for much of the current malaise, so do not have the moral grounds to issue such a rallying cry themselves either. The only people who could realistically issue such a rallying cry that might achieve the desired effect, would be new owners, the present incumbents having sold their shares and departed. So leaving aside the intense dislike of Lowe and Wilde felt by some fans, what about the other reasons, Nick? If people feel that price levels are too high and that because of the credit crunch they cannot afford it, are you advocating that they make financial sacrifices elsewhere in their budgets to attend? Everybody who is staying away is doing so for their own personal reasons. If those reasons are based on lack of finance, then there is nothing that you or anybody else can say that can change their minds. If they stay away because of their dislike of Lowe and Wilde, or because of perceived lack of value for their money, then the solution to those reasons puts the ball back in the court of the board.

I must confess that at first I misread it as Stern shocks Skates and I wondered what that was all about...