Wes Tender

Yes, it is indeed possible that if there are offers made to ST holders and members to buy extra tickets for friends and family that those tickets might have been bought anyway. But that is an accountant's philosophy rather than a sales based one. It was all very well having a policy of Gold/Silver/Bronze prices in the Premiership to encourage a full stadium, but somehow it doesn't seem to work now when the philosophy is to soak every last penny from the fans instead of trying to fill the stadium. Why shouldn't the same policy apply now? I'm sure that most would believe that if it has to cost £24 to watch us play Sheffield United, Birmingham or Reading, it ought to cost less to see Doncaster, Blackpool and Barnsley. I'm sure that all those bleating at the value for money would feel a lot better about it if they saw the board at least making some effort price and offer wise to increase the numbers watching. As I said elsewhere, even if the profit margin after taking account of extra costs associated with extra attendances was not improved by one penny, it would still be worthwhile doing it for the improved atmosphere, getting people into the habit of attending and encouragement of new supporters who would otherwise be lost to the glory teams.

Does this need a new thread, or could it just as easily have been a post on several other threads?

The alternatives available with Lowe and the Quisling in charge are indeed narrowed from what they might otherwise have been, as they have brought baggage with them that narrows our choices. Difficult to assess the percentage of fans who have either not renewed STs or who are boycotted some or all matches whilst they are here, but it is a factor. Likewise, as Um Pahars has pointed out on other threads, there are alternatives to the policies of this board to get shot of the last manager, sell all the family silver at bargain basement prices and import a Dutch coaching team totally inexperienced with football at this level or indeed in this country. The bizarre experiment was not the only option. How much of what has transpired is down to Lowe choosing this route as although it is a massive gamble, it could have worked and if successful he would have been hailed as the most imaginatively innovative Chairman in British football? Even if the plan had merit, I remain to be convinced that it could not have been implemented by others and that if Crouch was still Chairman something along similar lines could not have been attempted with Pearson. Cutting the wage bill and making other reductions to our cost base would have been an imperative for him too and it was obvious that some players would have to be sold to make those cost savings. It has recently become evident that the youngsters need some older heads around them and that the balance has gone too far in the direction of youth and inexperience. Apart from anything else, many have stated that the current set up is not value for money and yet nothing appears to have been done by the board to maximise revenue through the turnstiles by making special offers that might entice ST holders or members to bring along children or friends at special prices. So unless you can give good reasons why all of the above is unrealistic, then there are a few suggestions that might help the situation.

As well as Phil, there have been a couple of others who have made sensible suggestions as to how stadium numbers could be increased. I much prefer positive suggestions like this to the alternative ploy which is to deride and castigate those who choose to stay away for whatever reason and question their standing as fans. At least these suggestions go some way to addressing those who say that they cannot afford to go at current ticket prices. The fact that Lowe and the Quisling have not had the sense to employ ideas like these to maximise revenue in dire circumstances suggests that either they lack imagination, or arrogantly assume that the fans are just turnstile fodder that will attend regardless of what is on offer and what it costs just because we are fans. Well, it is becoming clear week by week that we are not going to be taken for granted in that way. The only way that might have any chance of success is if we are winning most of our home matches, which we are not. Unless they do something to address the situation, attendances will decline still further and administration will become a reality sooner rather than later. Quite simply, it is not reasonable to have to pay a similar amount to watch Fizzy Pop teams instead of the cream of the Premiership. It is not reasonable to have to pay the same to watch teams that were in the Premiership recently, as those like Blackpool and Doncaster who have come up from nowhere. Neither is it reasonable to have to pay the same to watch a team largely constructed of youngsters, almost devoid of known names, who it was possible to watch plying their trade for free last season. If because of those reasons people are staying away, then who can blame them? The ball is in your court, Rupert. Address these concerns now, or lose evrything when administration comes.

Into which category do you fall?

This debate is one of the most interesting for some time, as I feel that it encompasses the very crux of whether we can continue as a club in our current form. All very well those saying that unless we support the youngsters as they deserve and fill the stadium to support them, the dwindling attendances that we are experiencing now will soon result in our continuing losses leading to administration. And they then infer that it would be our fault, that because we stayed away, we killed our club. Most however would say that the club began its path towards our current poistion the moment that we got relegated and the ensuing boardroom shenanigans only made matters worse. Whether attendances declined as a result of a combination of factors such as the relegation from the Premiership, protests against Lowe/Wilde/Crouch, or the football played under Burley, Dodd and Gorman, Pearce or JP, does not alter the fact that the declining attendances are a fact more to do with the failures of one board or another and that like it or not, the fans have the perfect right to attend or not according to their own private reasons, whetever they be. A new board comprising none of the charlatans who have been involved with us this past decade would at least be able to issue a rallying call for support from all those who hold any affection for the club, making it plain that if they wish the club they love to survive, they can play their part in helping it happen by filling the stadium every week. The current incumbents probably either feel that it would be beneath their dignity and demeaning to make such a rallying call, or probably more accurately they know that it would be met by derision, as those who could make the difference have already voted with their feet, having no desire to dig Lowe and Wilde out of the sh*t. Whereas I understand LGSC's viewpoint and would support that position under most circumstances, I don't feel any obligation to do more than I currently do, attending match by match, but reserving the right not to go if my attendance stops giving me enjoyment because we are constantly losing at home to teams like Blackpool who we ought to be able to beat. I think that I am totally in accord with Vectis Saints well reasoned viewpoint.

It seems that I must really have gotten under his skin, as he feels the need to keep mentioning my name at every opportunity. He's obviously forgotten that I have already proved that not only does he make more posts than I do, but that his are invariably more verbose and rambling than mine too. And as for the rebuttal of Roger's naming, Trousers seems to have hit it on the head; methinks that Sundance doth protest too much, for some reason. Just for the record, I did look up that link that Roger provided, but decided that the individuals concerned with that company would have to be far cleverer than our Sundance, as the essence of being in marketing is that one is capable of expressing oneself with short pithy responses, something that he is patently not capable of.

Some can blame the fans all they like, but nobody can force people to pay their hard earned cash to watch a team of kids who could be watched for free last season. The attendance of any individual is entirely up to them as is their decision to stay away. Many will not go because of who is running the club. Again, their decision. But the club being where we are is not the fault of the poor bloody foot soldiers; the blame attaches to the generals who have not invested in the club or the team at the right time, taken the wrong decisions at vital stages in our development and are now clinging by their fingernails to power to protect their selfish interests. If we go under because people are staying away, Lowe and his cohorts can blame us all he likes, but he ought to have the intelligence to realise that people will only pay money to see his experimental set up if it is producing results. People are getting fed up with seeing attractive football that looks as if it will get us relegated.

Funny to see this thread, as I was musing on it yesterday myself. A manager I respected with a chairman prepared to dig into his own pockets to help his team which is consequently going well in the right direction. Contrast that with the situation that we are in. I hadn't made a decision on it, but did feel that right now I'd at least swap JP for Pearson if it were possible. As for swapping Lowe for Mandaric, I'd do that in a flash any day. At least then I'm assuming that Scabby would bugger off and support Leicester.

I don't blame Portvliet at all. I heap every last ounce of blame onto the shoulders of Lowe and the Quisling, apportioning the blame mostly on Lowe, as unless I have evidence to the contrary, I suspect that the mad experiment was all his idea and Wilde merely endorsed it with his share support. In the same way that Lowe would be hailed by British football as a daring and imaginative innovator if it succeeded against all expectations, likewise he will be derided if it fails miserably. Whereas it could still be turned around at the moment, every game played where it fails is making it more likely that it will not succeed and that even if we appeared on his radar at all, Alan Hansen will have ammunition to back up his assertion that you don't win anything with kids.

Read what I wrote again Nick. I said that we weren't good enough to beat two of the three probable relegation teams. Where did I say that Ipswich was one of them? The two that I was obviously referring to were Blackpool and Barnsley. The third on my list would be Doncaster who we play next week and naturally Rotherham will also be a big litmus paper on Tuesday. If we lose against them and Doncaster, then I believe that the fan base will start to lose patience with the board's weird experiment.

I believe that I was a few seats away from you with my son last season. We're still going, but haven't renewed our STs. We don't wish Lowe to have the satisfaction of knowing that he has our money and can get away with serving up youthful dross. As we haven't laid out our season's money in advance, we reserve the right to cherry pick matches in future if we don't stop the rot soon. As it costs the same now to watch the better teams in the division as it does the poorer ones, if we have something on that is more pressing on our entertainment commitments on a Saturday, or if we become too nonchalent about going out on a cold Winter's Tuesday night, then we can give it a miss and save some cash. If by doing that along with others attendance levels fall still further and the club is dragged towards administration, then Lowe had better do something about it, or he will lose his money tied up in his shares. I would feel sorry that Saints had arrived at that state, but Lowe, Wilde, Askham, Richards etc losing their money would be the silver lining.

Well, as we are simply not good enough to beat two of the teams deemed to be amongst the candidates for the drop, then logically we must be one of them too. For all the entertaining play, the honest endeavour of the youngsters, there was no end product to show for it. For large parts of the first half, the entire left third of the field was one of the least populated areas per square yard in the City of Southampton. I was half expecting to see gypsy caravans parked there the second half, but seemingly JP had also noticed it and during the second half we went to the opposite extreme and played a lot of our football down the left. Presumably B-WP got a deserved rollicking for wandering inside, thinking that he was a striker, instead of giving us the much needed width to stretch the midfield. As a punishment, he was replaced with Thompson who did a much better job. Credit where it was due in midfield, Gillett was good IMO, playing with energy and commitment. Wotton and Perry did well at CB, but weren't that troubled by a team who were here for the draw and didn't over pressure our goal. I think Mills did alright and would like to see him adopt LB as his position, allowing Surman to move up into midfield. I don't think that we were far adrift of getting something positive from the game apart from the lack of width and ability of the wide men to go for the byeline instead of cutting too early into midfield. But overall I think that we could easily slip into a trough of despondency if we don't get a win soon. Rotherham would do; but if we lose against them, I worry about next Saturday.

I think that if we lose today, lose against Doncaster, get knocked out of the cup by Rotherham, then there will be serious repercussions in terms of crowd dissent at the next home match if things are going badly there too. This will mainly be because these are all teams that we ought to beat, so any vestige of belief that we are somehow better than we are will have been blown away and the stark reality will be too much for some to take. If all this comes to pass, I fear for the confidence of the youngsters, which will ebb away quickly.

Does the use of the double negative in your first sentence mean that believe you expressed your opinion well, or not very well? Or should there have a full stop after "well"? You say that we didn't expect to lose, presumably talking about the architects of this plan, mostly Lowe I suspect, with the taciturn support of the Quisling. If it is indeed true that we didn't expect to lose games with a plan that is hugely experimental, relying on hitherto totally untested methods to be carried out by inexperienced youngsters and management also inexperienced not only in this country but also at this level, then Lowe and Wilde could be accused of extreme naivety. For all their faults, I don't accuse them of naivety, so it follows that they must have been aware that it was a huge gamble, thus the prospects of it all going tits up and us losing many matches if it didn't work were not only a possibility, but arguably a probability.

Of course the poor attendances are something to do with the cost of going. If we were in the Premiership, we might be paying £35 - £40, but we would be watching Manchester United, Chelski, Arsenal, Liverpool, etc. Not only are teams like that packed with World class players, but if we were in the Premiership, even our team would include some golden nuggets as well as the kids; we would have to. But because the stadium would be nearly full every match, the ST sales would soar, bringing down the per match cost. Being top of the league would certainly make it more tolerable to pay £24 per match, especially as there would be the prospect of kissing goodbye to the fizzy pop league, but paying £24 to watch our team of youngsters promoted to the first team often before their time, mixed with a few ageing journeymen, playing the likes of Barnsley, Blackpool and Doncaster is not my idea of value for money. Add to this the fact that we have already lost a game against the sort of poor opposition that we should be beating and that at home too and the cost element becomes paramount. Amesbury Saint came up with a range of sensible suggestions for special offers that might encourage better attendances. There is no reason why the club shouldn't expect something in return for the increased attendances such as a qualifying number of extra people/children, but to assume as Lowe seemingly does that nothing can be done to maximise attendances apart from winning games is short-sighted in the extreme. The time for action is sooner rather than later, as those who begin staying away will get into the habit of it and more difficult to get back.

If there was some optimum figure that produced exactly the same revenue, even including the ancilliary sales from merchandising, some have asked what is the point of getting those extra bums on the seats if we don't end up with more revenue? Well, a big factor for me is that the extra attendance adds to the atmosphere and also gets people in to the habit of attending matches, making for more solid fans. If we can keep people attending games, we remove the temptation that they get into the habit of going elsewhere.

Sorry, but no, LGSC. Relief is what I felt after the Ipswich game, against what I consider reasonable opposition. If we scrape a draw agaisnt Barnsley in the last minute having watched 10 goals, I won't feel elated. I'll feel that firstly the defence as usual was full of holes to let in 5 goals from a team like Barnsley and secondly I will feel that if we can't beat teams like them, Blackpool or Doncaster at home, then we truly are deep in the sh*t. And whatever the result, I'll not feel that £48 for the two of us was value for money when I was paying at that level to watch our team containing several International players play the World stars of Chelsea, Man United, Liverpool, Arsenal, etc.

I have been to every home match this season so far, although I didn't renew my ST nor my son's. But I take issue strongly with your last line. Why shouldn't anybody post and give reasons for why they stopped going? The reasons given should be of interest to those who look at this forum, but also of interest to the Board. Perhaps it is a good idea that they come down from their ivory towers and find out why it is that attendances are declining. No doubt if you had your way, nobody who did not attend regularly should feel any right to an opinion and those who attend the most should have the most weight credited to their opinion.

I just bought tickets for me and my lad for tomorrow. It cost £48 for us to watch what was mostly our youth or reserve team playing the mighty international star ridden Barnsley. So what did I feel about it? Keen anticipation that we would be watching a great entertaining and exciting match, or that it would be like the Blackpool match, or indeed the Ipswich match? To be honest, I didn't feel anything. No excitement, no anticipation, just pleased to have the opportunity of spending time with my son, but little else. I just know that nothing short of a win is going to change my feelings, but that a loss will edge me ever closer to the feeling that I could make better use of my time with my family and indeed better use of that money, until such time as Lowe, Wilde and others have gone for ever.

I couldn't agree more. Lowe is like all others who are in charge of businesses but come from a financial background. The only thing he understands is the bottom line on a balance sheet. Any concept of speculating to accumulate is alien to him. He has always failed to recognise when a little investment in taking us further by the astute purchase of a few better players would cement or improve our place in the top half of the Premiership, thus keeping us on the gravy train. His philosophy has always been to prefer buying several average players rather than a few top quality ones. But essentially, his biggest mistake is not understanding that there are a different set of rules appertaining to the entertainment industry to a normal business. He relies too heavily on the premise that because we are fans (fanatics) we will continue to support the team through thick or thin, regardless of what is served up in front of us. What he has failed to see with that scenario is that there is resentment that the prices have not dropped since we were in the Premiership. He expects us to pay the same to watch a bunch of home grown youngsters as the stars of World football who we would watch in the Premiership. In short, we are being taken for granted and some sections of the customer base have also even been verbally insulted too by him. When attendance levels are so vital currently to our very survival, his failure to at least set prices at a realistic level when such a large body of fans despise him will almost certainly mean that unless the team get a good run of wins, lower attendances will be the final nail in his and our coffin. We are faced with a massive dilemma. On the one hand his financial expertise may well save the club from administration in the short term, but longer term he is the most divisive person that could possibly be chairman when the prime requirement for survival is unity of purpose. In normal circumstances with somebody in charge who was not so despised by most, I for one would rally round and do anything I could to help turn this predicament around. But with Lowe in charge again and Wilde too, I find myself not being that bothered to do anything other than just attend home matches. STs, buying merchandise or goods in the concourse? Forget it.

I'm largely computer illiterate, but do I take it from what you say that there is some programme available which automatically and coninuoulsy bops the smarmy bastard on the chin whilst you are tucked up cosily in bed? All my illusions are shattered. Here was me thinking that there were thousands bopping him as a stress cure, not that it was being done through underhand methods of computer subterfuge.

Billy Davies could certainly do a job, but would be mad to come here under current circumstances. And I wish that he wasn't given this tag of his players playing hoofball. That might have been the case at Derby, but during his career it has been more a case of playing to the team's strengths and using what you have and getting the best out of it. With every match it becomes clearer that as entertaining as the play is here, the lads are not skillful enough to play total football and rival teams have realised who the weak links are and are exploiting them. The system we play leaves us weak at fullback and also weak up front. The system relies on the midfield tracking back to help in defence and to surge forward to add extra attacking thrust. Unfortunately the system leaves us susceptible to teams playing wide or hitting the ball through or over our midfield. We don't have the passing skill that the system needs, nor the pace in many positions. I would be confident that somebody like Davies would quickly identify the problems, shuffle the pack, bring in a few loanees to add steel and a spine and a tactical gameplan to counter the strengths and exploit the weaknesses of those teams that he knows well in this division. But we almost certainly couldn't afford him, much as really we can't not afford to have somebody like him. Catch 22.

Perhaps the formation is all wrong. It seems to me that in the matches I've watched this season the opposing team make loads of runs down our flanks to the byeline and yet we don't appear to be stretching them wide.

Why is it that we find it difficult to play well for both halves? Tonight we were poor during the first half. It was a boring half and the crowd, such as it was, was subdued. Even after Surman's well taken goal, which seemed to go in slow motion as it was not hit hard, but with accuracy, it felt difficult to be confident. The Ipswich goal had a certain invevitability to it. The defence never looked secure and thank God that Kelvin Davies is having a real purple patch this season and we owe him another debt of gratitude that we did not lose today. The save when they were through one on one was masterly and although Richard Wright was fantastic during our run in last season, I'm finding it harder now to wish that he has still here instead on Davies. It was obvious that things were not right, the midfield was disjointed and did not have control, passes were going astray all over the place and there was no cohesion. When the changes were made in the second half, one wondered whether the extra height from Schneiderlin and Peckhart was because the defence was vulnerable to high balls into the box, or whether it was purely to add more bite in midfield and up front. Certainly with B-WP on too, the change was noticeable almost straight away. The team started to win more 50-50 balls in midfield, there seemed to be more commitment and sense of purpose. The crowd who had previously been so subdued that they wouldn't have been reprimanded for being noisy at a funeral, sensed the change and the support appeared to lift the lads into greater endeavour. It is to their credit that they managed to pull back the equalising goal that salvaged the point. Having drawn level though, it still seemed eminently possible with our defence that we could have lost it, much as there was still a chance of stealing all three points too. I still believe that we are very weak defensively. I worry that having Wotton back in defence leaves us weak in midfield. I wonder whether we might be better with a dedicated left back like Mills, although a rookie and put Surman into the midfield. I wonder about how it would be if we had a solid CB available and played Cork at RB. And I also wonder whether Scacel might have added some extra fizz with a free roaming brief. At least we gained a home point and steadied the ship a bit results wise, even if the match almost asked more questions than it answered. But now the matches agianst Barnsley and Doncaster assume much more importance, as they are both matches that we should expect to win and if we don't, the air of despondency that is bubbling beneath the surface will grow and fester.