John Smith

Actually, I think the notion of staying away from every home game, every month, will have a more immediate reaction from the banks. However, from my perspective, it isn't about the banks noticing, in fact, I wish we weren't in danger of going into administration, bad timing for my apathy with the club to have drained. My point is to the board and the shareholders- You placed Lowe back in charge with a mandate to rule through a majority shareholding 'vote'. I, as a paying customer, remove my mandate from Lowe to rule, through not donating my money to this regime. The 'only' way for me to 'protest' my displeasure, is to withold my money and by proxy, any mandate that Lowe has to rule on my behalf. I disagree with his policies and his direction, I also hold contempt for the way in which he enforces those policies and even more so, totally object to the lack of understanding and empathy he has with the fans of this club. Customers, that is what I throw back in Lowes face, anyone that wants to argue the case for Lowe, and me paying my money regardless, I want you to first explain the difference between a customer and a fan, then, think if you've actually described either, or just a nodding dog and a herd of sheep, baaaa.

I think you'll find, that when people like Lowe are concerned, saying nothing at all is the best way to proceed. By turning up, like an angry, witch hunting mob, it will only give Lowe ammunition to throw back and encourage others to part with their hard earned cash. ( BTW, how much does Lowe pay for his seat - oh, we pay him, nice one). By staying away, the 'protest' has a more 'presence', as it cannot be 'attacked'. All sorts of people aren't going to games anymore, the young, the old, the wealthy, the poor. All social groups are represented and all walks of life have a voice. We don't need to turn up on demand for some sort of freakshow! Listen to the silence my friend, we are not happy, period!

Just for information and nothing else, was round my fathers today, and as we were explaining to some relatives why we weren't at the game, placed at Ruperts door, my father stated that one of the guys at his work, a couple of weeks ago, stood up and started voicing his opinion on Lowe and suggested he should go. He was immediately ejected from the ground by the stewards. He is a ST holder, and even though he is not banned, will not be returning whilst Lowe is in charge. Lowe ejecting the anti's? Or just a loud mouth from the Northam? You decide. My last post this 24hrs, so, just for the record, never went today, not going next game either, my opinion counts for diddly squat, accept that, with Christmas coming up and the credit crunch starting to really bite, I'd like to thank Rupert for saving me all that extra money, Peppa Pig has been cleared from the shelves and my daughter will be happier than most ST holders on Christmas day (boxing day).

Nick, I think you'll find that much of this is in your mind. People knew, when Lowe closed the corners, that Crouch had already looked into doing this. The most people stated was that maybe Leon would've listened to the fans and adjusted the area's to be closed and kept open Itchin North, as it was a good area for boxing in the away fans. But, I don;t recall many, if at all any, fans claiming this was a bad move. Yes, LC would've probably kept NP, but then, that has been the biggest change brought to this club, a whole new 'system' and style of play. And as yet, we are going to have to wait to see if it works or not, 2-3 seasons minimum. The stuff about the academy and keeping on the high earners is really a large leap from fact to fiction, wasn't it Crouch that loaned out Skacel AND Rasiak at the end of last season? Many of the high earners would also have followed, but maybe not quite the stripping of experience that we have seen under Lowe. Doesn't mean that that experience would've been in the 'high earners' category. 'Shutting Down' the academy? Where has that ever been suggested by anyone from LC's camp. Sure, it may shut down, but that would happen under Lowe, equally as it would happen under Crouch. Because, even though you may think Lowe would 'never' shut it down, this would then conflict in your opening sentence about 'protecting his investment'. Because, if push came to shove, Lowe putting his hand in his own pocket OR shutting down the academy, which one do you think would be most likely? Lastly, your first statement, Crouch probably wants to protect his 'investment' also, but probably because he would want to save Saints. Lowe was having issues long before Crouch came back and it waqs just a matter of making one of the major shareholders crack before he waltzed back into Dodge, Wilde was that Patsy, nothing about 'protecting investment' it's about 'control' and doing it 'his way' because Lowe knows best! Reasonable response U & A, so I will treat your comments with respect - Firstly, I was pretty miffed when the club went plc, I was miffed again when we failed to invest properly after the FA Cup final, instead of buying a star player, we bought a star name, Van Damme! Then I was even more miffed when we got relegated, so, now I am truly miffed that he is back. Anyway, I pretty much agree with the rest of what you've said, although I think I should put this one out there on the Redknapp saga, as I ran out of posts when it was running the first time. IF, Lowe wanted a manager to play the youngsters, HOWEVER he went about it, is not important, ask yourself this, would you choose Harry Redknapp as your manager? Would you then ask him to stay on after relegation, KNOWING that you had a much smaller transfer kitty? Maybe, maybe not, but if you know anything about football and follow the game as a whole rather than just Saints, anyone would know that Harry was not the type of manager to play the youngsters, especially in League 1! Old pro's and cheap buys were his speciality. Harry was not the man Lowe could approach to apply pressure (in any way) to play anyone else other than those selected by Harry. We've seen this born out at Spurs, No DoF. But like I said, don;t disagree with much there U & A, just wanted to share that view on Harry, and, I'm sure many would agree, Harry was not the type of manager ANY Chairman could influance on the playing side.

I'm starting to get more miffed at these sorts of comments, sorry nickh, not specifically you. 1. Lowe is the only one that could save us from admin (largely said pre-comeback) 2. There is no alternative to Lowe, otherwise I would gladly support them 3. If LC has money to inject, do it rather than 'sitting on the sidelines'. OK, let's clear this up once and for all - 1. The idea's (closing the corners, stopping the free bus, selling players, cheap manager) we ALL Crouch's ideas and not Lowes. I have not seen ONE original idea from Lowe. 2. The same comment should apply to Lowe when Crouch was still Chairman. Lowe IS NOT A VIABLE OPTION. He was booted out last time, the fans didn't want him, the shareholders didn't want him, SAINTS CANNOT AFFORD HIM OR HIS BUNGLING WAYS. 3. If LC has money, good for him, LOWE IS IN CHARGE, if anyone should put their hand in their p[ocket it should be Lowe. Sorry, I forgot, he does put his hands in his pockets, those pockets belong to the fans though! So, to clarify, in replacing Crouch, LOWE WAS NOT A VIABLE OPTION AND DID NOT BRING BILLIONS TO THIS CLUB AS PEOPLE ARE SUGGESTING LOWES REPLACEMENT SHOULD DO! The hypocrisies run from high in this club, all the way down to the rank and file that chant these ludicrous notions. Once more, and I think you're all getting it now: LOWE WAS NOT A VIABLE REPLACEMENT LOWE HAS NOT BROUGHT INVESTMENT LOWE IS NOT SAVING US FROM ADMINISTRATION LOWE OUT, but let's make him walk this time, he's had his golden hand job, sorry, shake.

Just to clarify, before you read this post, I have no issue with Lowes 'class', upbringing nor 'wealth'. And to substantiate that, I would like to point out, that I have a few friends that are far wealthier than Lowe (sadly not interested in football) and one, that is wealthy and the youngest son of a Lord (also unfortunately, not the slightest bit interested in football). Lowe, had it all, whether you agree with the 'means' by which he gained his position, he 'was' in prime position 5 years ago. Relatively, he had made a 'small investment' in this club, and 5 years ago, was on the brink of something very big, considering the circumstances. In my opinion, the acid test on a leader, doesn't come when everything goes well, but what strategies they have to keep that momentum going and how they correct things when stuff starts to go wrong. The strength of the leadership is truly tested when 'change' is required, biting the bullet, swallowing your pride and moving on swiftly, is a characteristic that few leaders have, but the best one's, success is achieved, even if it means they fail. Whatever your view on how we got there, or who was the key factor, truth was, we were in an enviable position. IMO, we got lucky, we got lucky with WGS being as good as he was for us, we got lucky in the early stagers of our cup run, some of the cheap foreigners we bought came good (Anders and Michael Svensson, Niemi, Pahars) and we were on the verge of something big, for the first time in our history, we were on the verge of becoming a second tier team, ie, one of those teams fighting for one of the positions outside of the top four, on a 'regular' basis. But then, the acid test on Lowe failed. He squandered one of the best opportunities in football and we plummeted to where we find ourselves today. In my opinion, Lowe ignored the immediate need to capitalize on our position and realise that, in order to fully cement our position, we required ONE good, quality player, of proven ability. We were a year or so away from realising the fruits of the academy. Imagine the likes of Walcott and Bale coming through into Saints as a top 10 Prem side, plus an experienced well drilled TEAM! Rather than selling them straight away, we, the fans, would see them regularly ina Saints side for more than 1 season. But Lowe gambled with this club by choosing, IMO, the wrong path. He went for journeymen and quantity, rather than quality and ability. He believed that numbers, plus a few youngsters coming through, was enough to sustain us at our current level. He was wrong. And the facts speak for themselves. But, not only was he wrong, he was not big enough to allow Saints to succeed, even though his decisions were failing. As captain of this ship, he needed to bring her about, he needed to alter course and steer us away from the rocks. But like the captain of the Titanic, he believed we (he?) was unsinkable. Lowes decisions, and IMO, lack of 'change' were the downfall of this club. Our (Lowes) inability to change course when failure was heading our way, due to, from what I can make out, pure bloody mindedness, drove this ship into that iceberg, and, from an outsiders point of view, whilst the Captain and his Special guests, sipped sherry in the boardroom, congratulating (backslapping) themselves on their remarkable, unexpected, success. The only thing to add, in regard to his current return, Lowe hasn't altered his course. If anything, he is sailing this smaller vessel, even faster, and into not one, but a whole ocean of icebergs (that are labeled - 'administration', 'relegation' and 'obliteration', respectively) and I for one, sure don't a Captain of a ship, in an ocean 'full' of icebergs, when his track record shows he hit the only iceberg, and it was a fl*ppin big iceberg', on a calm day with full visibility and a radar that showed no other icebergs whatsoever (just that one). But then, even after all that, I do see the irony. Saints are the only team I recall, being such experts and so consistent, at snatching defeat, from the jaws of victory!

Whilst I understand where Long Shot is coming from, I want to give this thread some balance. I also felt disenfranchised by the club, having done 'my bit' in 'asking' Lowe to leave last time, in the manner Mr Blobby87 described above, whilst still giving 100% support to those on the pitch, Lowe then returned. So, what am I to do? I weighed up the situation, and decided that if they can't here my voice, maybe they don't want my money and support, because my money and my support is what they want from me. I want Lowe to go. Having protested, discussed and argued about the issue, Lowe finally went and we paid him well to leave. After Lowe returned and I heard what his intentions were, I almost felt like 'throwing in the towel' like I feel Long Shot has done, but then I thought a bit more about it. Long Shot, it's not (IMO) that you want Saints to lose, you just want the 'regime' to fall so flat, that it 'has' to be acted upon. In your eyes, the best way for this to occur, is that if Saints continue to lose. However, here is my perspective, every game Saints approach, I try and think about how we will win, just like I always did, look at the positives and maybe we will come good and get the momentum, something we've always been looking for. When the results come in and we've lost, I am disappointed but want to look to the next game. But that's just the way it is. Us winning or losing, in itself, will not get rid of Lowe. Sure, success may help keep him in, but losing will not get rid. The only thing that matters in this, is the attendance figures. It is THE only factor that determines whether Lowe is there or not. So, whether we win, lose or draw, I always want us to have played well. And, if we were top of the league right now, I would be happy. It would be bitter sweet, as I wouldn't be there, but I ALWAYS want us to do well. IMO, the best scenario, to get rid of Lowe, would be if we were top of the league by a good margin and we only had the away fans in attendance. (Please note, those that have been harking on about turning up regardless, in this scenario, us not being there had no or the reverse effect, and we were flying high). THE ONLY WAY LOWE WILL GO, IS IF WE DON'T! Come on Saints, beat Wolves. I am also praying that a deflected clearance ends up in the face of Lowe, it's up to you to decide which is more likely?

I can't see why fans cannot 'question' what is something so close to their hearts? I can't see why, if fans think that something is wrong, that they can't speak up without being called a mob, or that they're blowing it out of proportion? The trouble with having fans that are easily dismissive, is that, when something terrible happens, we have no ground or motives to act upon, we become hypercritical in our actions. If some fans want to 'question' the amount of input that the Chairman of the PLC has on the SFC, then they should. Just because you don't find it interesting or believe it, doesn;t mean that it doesn't go on. And this head in the sand approach is born oout by many of the pro-Lowe comments on here, claiming that some fans thinks he is 'picking the team'! Now that is just exaggerating the point to enable you to ignore 'the debate'. By pretending that you understand that Bassett claimed Lowe was picking the team, is actually proving that you haven't read, haven't digested and haven't formed an opinion on the matter at hand. If you want to poo poo people's opinions, then read them and comment on them. And because this is my last post for the next 24 hrs, I'd like to point you to my previous post in this thread, it isn't about whether Lowe picks the team or not, it's an opinion, based on the onformation available, and what 'I' believe. If you have an 'opinion' on this, please retort (wait 24hrs) and I will respond. (P.S. not just aimed at you SOG, just had to say this again as Um Pahars had pointed this and other points out earlier, but some people are ignoring the debate) (P.P.S, see you on the Bassett in the Echo thread )

How much money did Lowe have to shell out to run this club (into the ground)? Was it anywhere near £40mil? And now, at our lowest ebb in 30 years, someone wanting to save us, has to be a billionaire! Is this not a scandal? Is this not proof enough at how poor Lowe has done in his position? Does this not show that his decisions have forced us into the "un-investable" category? Does this show that his demands for 50pence a share for him and his cronies, was a vast inflation of a CCC team? Does this not show us that Lowe has made it impossible to sell this club? Does this not mean that the only "sale" will be a "fire sale" when the administrators move in? Tell me, did Lowe fork out £40million to gain control? because that's what it's going to take to get rid of him! And then think about his couple of hundred grand "investment" then subtract ten years of Chairmans wages + dividends + expenses + bonuses (FA Cup Final?) + payoff when he was booted out last time, and you tell me that Southampton PLC haven't paid more for Lowe than Lowe paid for us. Lowe is a blood sucking parasite. Is there an alternative? Sure, get his cronies to convince him to step down and vote in a circus chimp, AND we could pay it peanuts!

And so, another snippet from an ex-employee, that is used as evidence to back up some claims (as it is out in the public domain) and pilloried by others for some sort of vengeance attack on a man that said ex-employee has held a grudge with for over 3 years and felt that now was the time? For all of those that are in any doubt about what is or isn't the truth, all you need to do is look on the pitch, look at the bench (who is sub, who is manager, and who is missing) and then remind yourself that this is Rupert's club. No more, no less. He does it his way. All we have to do as fans is decide whether we agree or not. The problem comes, as in my position, where you disagree with the way Rupert wants to do things and I feel so strongly that he is not 'playing the game' but a completely different one, that my, and others, 'only' recourse, is to not go anymore and to deprive Rupert of the mandate to rule on behalf of me. If you are happy to have the Chairman of the PLC run the Football Club, in the manner that he does, turn up, donate your wages to the regime and give Lowe the mandate to rule. One thing that is becoming very clear, very quickly this season, is that people, based on results, are more willing to turn their back on Rupert and deny him the satisfaction of growing in strength. And all the while he blatantly ignores the fleeing fans, the more he will alienate by sticking to his guns. The question, to Rupert, is who will crack first, him or the fans? Deliver success and they will return. However, his battle is not being fought in the boardroom, amongst the shareholders and the banks, but on the training pitch and on matchdays, this, whether Rupert thinks he can influence things, or not, it is not working. All well and good putting youngsters in the shop window that have played with one another in the youth and the reserves, but when they are sold, the next crop wouldn't have built up that rapport, not built up their skills, not been out on loan to get used to 'real' football and will be even more inexperienced than the last lot. As this occurs, the value will get less and less and we won't be able to sell anyone for more than a few hundred thousand, certainly not millions. As this continues, there will become a time when one of the 16 year olds will try one flick too many and a burly great CB will snap his legs, and that will be the end of possibly a great career. This worries me, and I think condoning this sort of exposure is throwing out boys against men, in a mens world. Stinks of child sweat shops in India to me, but like I said, the real tragedy of Rupert's decisions will only come to pass when one of these boys ends up in hospital (and no I don't mean the current lot, I mean the next generation that WILL be younger). Support the Saints, support our kids, don't go and pay the paymaster to churn out what in footballing terms is tantamount to child labour.

If you're talking about the punch rather than the banana's, it was at Highbury. It happened in the first half. However, with Saints 2-0 up, at Highbury, the ref added on 'some time', Arsenal made it 2-1 from a 'dubious' handball, and then in the 98th minute, equalised! The ref, added on a further minute to see if Arsenal could snatch a winner, but then decided to blow for full time as the final results dhows were all ending. I was there that day, and from that day to this, do not know why all that time was added on. 4-6 minutes were added on in the first half for Glen's incident, but cannot recall 9mins of injuries in the second. Happened a lot to us that season, and yet we were flying high early on. Great days! (doh!)

I hear VW are the new sponsors of Coventry! LOL

No matter how good these players are individually, there will always be performances like the Bristol game. Yesterday' s game was a prime example of why 'most' teams do not rely on youngsters. What we saw yesterday was lots of energy, lots of determination, flashes of individual skill and some moments that 'almost' came off. With youngsters, it will always be hit and moss, this is why managers such as Arsen, shield them from the limelight, one week they are the next Pele, the next week they are the worst teenager ever to put on the shirt. Teenagers are inconsistent, inexperienced and lack 'guile'. Te reason Hanson suggested that Man U would never 'win anything with kids' is because nobody ever has, and it is unlikely anybody ever will again. Arsenal are trying but they are a long way off being World Beaters, they are just a team with a lot of potential and on their day, when they all play well, they can beat anyone, but they can also lose to anyone, even throw away a 2 goal lead in injury time. Concentration is not a teenagers greatest asset, we all know that, and teenagers that play football are no different, they WILL switch off at some point in 2 hours! To sum up, teenagers may save us getting relegated, but we will be no better than 'inconsistent' all season.

I am glad I raised this 'issue' now, because these two posts are spot on. I do agree with you on number 1 saintwarwick, but would also add, that very few teams 'win' the FA Cup without some sort of luck along the way. I think we were 'lucky' with the draws we got. But as you rightly point out, we still had to win them, but also, I did point out that we scraped through the early rounds - Millwall anyone. But thanks guys for not giving absolutely moronic responses. And it was nice to view some comparisons on the 'we have to thank Lowe for the FA Cup Final' debate. 1976 Chairman anyone?

Don't know why I'm bothering to feed the troll, but please read my post again, maybe even twice, because you are having a real whoosh moment, getting on your divine soapbox and trolling for all your worth. Let's look at your post on McMenemy: "McMenemy was reasonably successful at one club, once." Reasonably successful? So he took a rag tag, almost relegated to division 3 side to the FA Cup Final, which we won. (Out of interest, I'm not sure if you're giving credit to McMenemy, or are you praising the Chairman for this? Do you even know who the Chairman was in 1976? Now there's a little bit of trivia for the troll) Texaco Cup finalists 1975 FA Cup winners 1976 Anglo-Italian League Cup Finalists 1976 League Cup Finalists 1979 League Two Runners Up 1978 DIV 1 RUNNERS UP 1984 3rd Round Cup Winners Cup 1977 (whilst in Div 2) Qualified for Europe in 1984 Qualified for Europe 1985 (5th) Due to Heisel, we were unable to compete. So, this manager that brought us all these great days out, was 'reasonable'? I'm sure Lawrie is chuffed that you think of all these achievements so highly. Surely, no bigger compliment have you paid to anyone that surpassed 'reasonable'. Or are you saying that all this success was down to the Chairman (remember who it was yet?) Your comments are truly worthless CB. If you've finished re-reading my original post, you'll have noticed that I wasn't rubbishing the 'achievement' but the idea that we should 'thank' Lowe for it. I pointed out the reasons for this stupid reasoning and gave praise where praise was due - The manager, his techniques, his fitness regime, arguably the two best Centre backs in the league and arguably the best keeper. And from that, I have gone on to give my opinion that we should have gone on from there, if Lowe was the great visionary chairman that people are claiming he was for this FA Cup Final. And did we? No, two seasons later - RELEGATED! Divine Chairmanship? Now, Let's compare that with the success in 1976. Did we sit on our success and invest in journeymen? Or did we push on and compete? Did we not succeed in competing? Comparison - 2003, FA Cup Finalist 2 years later, relegated. 1976, FA Cup Winners, 2 years later, PROMOTED! Can you spot the difference? Now, I know I'm talking to a troll and obviously my logic is too infantile for you to follow, but I will re-iterate by adding the 1976 comparison. In 1976, after winning the FA Cup, did our expecatations rise to extra ordinary proportions and expect to beat everyone and anyone, win the league, then win the 1st Division, win the Cup Winners Cup and then the European Cup the next year? NO! And just like when we were runners up in 2003, we didn't expect to become World beaters, and as fans, our expectations were fairly moderate. Clinching a European spot in 6th was about as heady as some of us got. But surely, not even a troll like you expected RELEGATION 2 seasons later? And yes, due to Lowes failure to invest in a couple (even one) good player after the Cup final drove Strachan out, inability to stabilise the next manager (Sturrock) and sacking him after just a couple of games later, the Hoddle fiasco, the Wigley fiasco, the scraping the barrell with Judas Harry ended in our relegation, WITH, 248 first team average players. Like I said, maybe this reasoned argument is a little too infantile for you to find a trolling response. So, talk to you again nect time you come out from under your stone because you're bored. Jog on. (I don't bother doing rolly eye thingy's, I find them too infantile)

I don't respond to you usually CB, generally because of your slur against disabled people. But you have proven that you are a one trick pony once again. You have missed the point, taken your own agenda, thrown in a few insults and tried to belittle someone, just because you can't find anything better to do. Well done, maybe you should raise the bar one day, but I doubt it. As for posting infantile drivel, try re-reading your post, sit back, think for more than one second, let the reality bite, then crawl back under the stone from whence you came. Jog on.

Now, I must point out, because this does get raised quite a lot (the FA Cup run), We have to remember that we beat Millwall (after a replay) scraped through against a very poor and recently relegated Norwich, beat an average Championship side, at home again in Wolves, (even though the OS thinks it was 0-0), I thought we beat Spurs 4-1 this season, but can't find any trace of the game. Semi Final against a very average Watford team, narrowly beating them 2-1. Then drawing according to the OS, 0-0 in the final with Arsenal. Now, I know in comparison with todays team, we would be jumping for joy if we'd beaten those teams, but the reality was, we had a very ordinary side, with two very good central defenders and one of the best goalkeepers in the league. A manager who made us one of the fittest sides in the division AND still Lowe wouldn't back us with that money, the extra stadium attendance money or sky. He bought us sh*t, Strachan left, we brought in more sh*t, Sturrock was kicked out, replaced by sh*t, booted out again and employed a bigger sh*t! How exactly should we celebrate a cup final when all it did was bring us in sh*t? Had our expectations risen as fans, no chance, still hoping and wishing to be in the top ten, but Lowe masacred that chance, nice dividend that year though, very handsome. So, did Lowe get us to Wembley? Or was it just the luck of the draw with the home ties against mediocre opposition and a very good manager (that Lowe got in because he was cheap) and a very good fitness programe? LOWE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR FA CUP FINAL APPEARANCE! NOTHING. In fact, if it was down to him, he would have drawn Man U at Man U in the first round, take the money and run! Money Money Money, this all went into the shareholders pockets and a bone was thrown to the manager to spend on sh*t. Bye bye Strachan, you were a great manager for us, but you were given nothing to work with, except dross and bargain basement signings. I think we boosted the largest squad in the league the year we went down, I think I remember counting 248 first team players!

You really do live in some veiled fantasy land that acts like a bubble and prevents people's opinion from seeping through. Do me a favour, please 'QUOTE' somebody, in fact anybody, that has said this is being done to line Lowes pockets. Then after you've exhausted yourself and found nothing, ask yourself this question, could a chimpanzee not do the same job, and for peanuts? Apparently, Barclays are running the finances and picking the squad, Crouch had the idea's for the cost cutting, in fact the ONLY idea that Lowe has brought in, is JP. That is the extent of Lowes 'PAID' leadership of this club. Squeeling, I think not, pointing out the flaming obvious, now there's a thing!

I do find myself becoming more and more amused at those defending Lowe FC, in their quizzical stance that, if the supporters stop going, Lowe FC will be effected financially? What finances are we talking about? As far as I'm aware, Lowe FC has no finances. The only thing that our money buys is a pay day for Lowe each month plus the added bonus that he might well get a return on his shares by selling them to the highest bidder, for what was it? 50pence per share? LOL When Lowe FC goes into administration, and providing he doesn't acquire the fledgling SFC, I may well return. But all the time I'm asked to make some muppet rich, I think, nah! Will all those fans rejoice when Lowe retains Lowe FC after administration and re-names it Lowe United? Or maybe Lowesmouth?

Rupert, is a stupid fool, He thought, that he knew it all, Gave us total football, but he knows F*ck All, Not even, the offside rule!

As much as it pains me to say this, Lowe isn't going anywhere. It took Wilde and Crouch to dislodge him, and now, there aren't enough shares left to buy a large enough slice to depose the Emperor. This doesn't stop me believing that Lowe should step down. Being an incompetent fool, shouldn't be a pre-requisite for being a football Chairman. Being a blithering idiot, shouldn't be a requirement to become DoF. But, somehow, Lowe seems to be able to turn his failures into positives, gets followers to support his crusade and falls on his ar*e again by trying to be more clever than he obviously is. Lowes little games have ruined this club and, will be the ruin of this Club. Administration is just around the corner. By continuing to turn up at SMS and pay your money is the equivalent of keeping your favourite pet alive on a life support machine. Sometimes it is cruel to keep something alive just for the sake of it. This is no life, put Saints out of their misery and leave Lowe alone in his palace that he built in his honour. In the days of Emperors of the Greek empire, they would cut out the eyes of the emperor in order to replace him as it was claimed that an emperor could not lead if he was blinded. But we allow Lowe to continue, even though he is blinded by his own ego and his desire to trifle with our lives. Lowe is not a positive thing for this club, he should go, but won't. This club is dying a slow and painful death, put it out of its misery I say, letting it squirm and gasp for air does nobody any good. RIP Southampton FC.

Come in a taxi, you must've come in a taxi (to support like Luton or Wimbledon) Favs were against Liverpool: Does the social know you're here? I've got a wallet, I've got a wallet, you ain't, you ain't! We've got loadsa loadsa money in the South! He's only a poor little scouser, his face is all tattered and torn, he made me feel sick, so I hit him with a brick, and now he don't sing any more! A couple from Tottenham: Tottenham went all the way to Rome to see the Pope Tottenham went all the way to Rome to see the Pope Tottenham went all the way to Rome to see the Pope And this is what he said, F*UCK OFF! Who's that team they call Tottenham, who's that team that never score, They play in blue and white and they're really f'ing sh*te and Terry Venables mother is a wh*re! Paul Gasgoigne is illegitimate, He ain't got no birth certificate Paul Gasgoigne is illegitimate, he's a Tottenham b*stard, he's a Tottenham b*stard Some general ones: Come join us, come join us, come join us over here! You couldn't run the magic roundabout! You're so loud you must be Aldershot!

Quite simply, NP was not the type of manager Rupert envisaged in his revolution. He was considered 'old school' and Rupert does not like to think of himself as a backward thinker. JP was on Ruperts mind long before he even returned and it was always his priority to install him. IMO, the downfall of NP came about, not because of the wages, not because of NP's ability or lack of perceived ability to work with youngsters and a limited budget, but because he was not going to be the puppet that Lowe wanted. Rupert wants things done HIS WAY. We all know this, there is no room for deviation from the narrow minded path that has been chosen by Rupert. Any dissent or mutterings of discontent are dealt with and moved on. In some business' this would be a good thing, hell, even in a football club, this could be a good thing, BUT NOT WHEN YOU ARE WRONG!

People on here keep harking on about 'without Lowe, what's the alternative?' Well, first, I think you have to define the problem. Let's assume two Lowe roles; 1. Director of the PLC 2. Director of Football 1. Director of the PLC - Company directors' responsibilities are wide and diverse. Their duties arise primarily from two sources: statute (i.e. Acts of the Oireachtas and other legislation e.g. EU Regulations) and common law. A company director stands in a special relationship to the company of which they are an officer. This special position is known as a 'fiduciary position' and the director is known as a 'fiduciary'. A fiduciary is required to act in a manner which is legally becoming of their office and which places the interests of the company ahead of their own. Perhaps somewhat surprisingly to many, a director's duties are usually owed in the first instance to the company and not to the members, creditors or employees of the company. Where, however, a director expressly undertakes certain obligations to shareholders, he or she may stand in a fiduciary relationship to them and owe them fiduciary duties. This may particularly be the case in a small private company where shareholders often look to the directors for advice. When a company is insolvent (i.e. is unable to pay its debts as they fall due), a director will owe a duty to the company's creditors (i.e. people to whom the company owes money). A director is also obliged to have regard to the interests of the company's employees. However, this duty may not be enforced by the employees themselves and is instead owed to the company. 2. Director of Football - "Director of Football" is a term describing a senior management figure at a football club, most commonly used in Europe. The exact nature of the role is often unclear and causes much debate in the sports media. Dave Bassett described the role as (even though it was Dave Bassett, I thought it was still a worthwhile description) " ..... a buffer. The director of football is answerable to the board but there to assist the manager. He's experienced in football and there to help the board members who don't have that experience." In theory it means that the manager is left to concern himself with the day to day running of the club, the picking of the team, and the decisions about tactics and training. The director meanwhile looks after the budget, and allocates money for transfers and the youth academy. The director is often involved in the selection of the manager, so that the manager knows he has full support from his subordinates. The plus side is that there is an experienced football head watching the scouts, the budget and the academy, allowing the manager to get on with the team. The down side is that the experienced football head often cannot help giving their opinion of the manager's actions. Most directors of football are ex-managers, given a more "senior" role at the club because the board do not want to lose his experience, despite the fact he has not been getting the results. The director of football's job is sometimes compared to that of a general manager in a North American professional sports organization. I began this thread with defining the problems, now that we can clearly see, that, unless stated otherwise in the articles of SLH, THERE IS NO REASON that ANYBODY can be the Director of this PLC. The fact that Lowe and his buddies have created a closed shop is a different matter. The idea that we are further from administration now than when Lowe took over is ridiculous, Lowe has failed AGAIN! We are no better off than if Crouch had carried on, remember, Crouch advocated the closing of the corners, the cutting of the free bus service, loaned out some of our better players to get them off the wage bill and would've sold many of the 'stars' that Rupert did. Am I advocating the return of Crouch? NO. I am stating that Crouch was going to make the same cost cutting decisions as Lowe actually did. The sale and purchase of playing staff is largely dictated by the banks, so, no room for flexibility there. So, ANYBODY with Director or Chairman duties of a CCC team experience could do an equal job to Lowe. That is unless the person we need to replace Lowe, needs to be DOF as well. Because the more I read the role of the DoF, the more like Lowe it sounds. Therefore, Lowe should step down as Director and or Chairman, let's EMPLOY an experienced Director and if need be, a proper DoF. Where's the money coming from I hear you cry. Funnily enough, the bank will sanction the employment of a professional and experienced DIrector if they believe them to be well qualified. I think Lowe has shown the banks that he is all bluff and bravado and it is time for him to go. Can he keep his shares? Of course he can, but he should vote to have somebody more qualified than him to do the job. He has shown his incompetence and his meddling will be the downfall of this club. I vote for someone who can do the one job, pick Director of PLC OR Director of Football and DO IT. Don't just turn up 2 days a week, get a sackfull of money, c*ck things up and p*ss off again! lowe is a JOKE! He couldn't Direct traffic, let alone a PLC, and as for DoF!!!! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!

I sat in the Stretford end at Man U and watched us get our butts kicked 5 - 0, I think Sherringham scored a hat trick and I remember thinking, 'please just score a goal and I will go mental' it would've made my day. It didn't happen and I had to listen to the Man U fans as they talked down their noses at our little club. God I wished we had scored!