Basset .....LOWE DOES INTERFERE

[hughieslastminutegoal]

 

To use a racing analogy, plan A was to train a Derby winner, Plan B seems to be so go for the selling stakes at Salisbury.

 

I do like the racing analogy - but he never had a plan A anything like that ambitious.

 

His plan A was a kind of Cambridgeshire entry - a horse with very little quality, with a huge handicap and trained by someone who has only schooled a point-to-pointer.

 

And Plan B seems to me more like a novice chase at Kempton with a 3 year old shetland pony, ridden of course by an apprentice so green he still claims a 7lb allowance.

[solentstars]

I think what winds me up and maybe some others is the sudden jumping up and down claiming how evil lowe is, yet when the real facts and not the fabricated ones that are used to suit peoples agendas are available they are just dismissed them as if they mean something else. some kind of coded message to the resistance or something.

 

I dont like Lowe personally but untill there is a better alternative there is not much I can do about it.

i think you should realise most of the threads are made up by lowe fanatics to suit their own dream world.

[saintjay77]

i think you should realise most of the threads are made up by lowe fanatics to suit their own dream world.

 

Think that happens on both side of the Lowe fanatics

[solentstars]

Think that happens on both side of the Lowe fanatics

got to agree with that:cool:

[Frank's cousin]

Only last week you were claiming Lowe doesn't get involved in football matters. I think Bassett has made your assertions of last week a bit silly, Frank.

 

NOt quite sure what this statement has to do with the post in this thread, but hey why let that worry you. I stand by the fact that all I have seen is Bassett hint at Lowe wanting the club to play more kids... which is not what many would call interference.... and today we see that retratcted anyway so tell where the evidence is of 'Lowe picking the side' - as there is none - which as stated last week - none on BOTH sides .... but What confuses me nmost is this glee some fans semm to have whenever there is something new and controversial .... as if the fragile nature of the club is not bad enough, there is from some quarters as desire to make it worse and teh perception that they are enjoying seeing that happen. Anyone could be forgiven that some that post on here actually support those down the road....

[Viking Warrior]

.....................

Edited 7 December, 2008 by Viking Warrior

[Wes Tender]

but What confuses me nmost is this glee some fans semm to have whenever there is something new and controversial .... as if the fragile nature of the club is not bad enough' date=' there is from some quarters as desire to make it worse and teh perception that they are enjoying seeing that happen. Anyone could be forgiven that some that post on here actually support those down the road....[/quote']

 

Talking in generalities, it is accepted by most that regardless of whether they are for or against the people currently running the club, that until those people are gone, there will never be a unified fan base. Most would also accept the premise that in times of financial pressure such as these, the only way that the club will survive, let alone progress, is with that unity of purpose.

 

Is it any wonder then that when snippets of information leak out into the public domain that might provide ammunition against those people running (ruining?) the club, that they are used as a stick to beat them with? So why so confused by it? Surely it's just human nature, Frank.

[rpb]

Is it any wonder then that when snippets of information leak out into the public domain that might provide ammunition against those people running (ruining?) the club, that they are used as a stick to beat them with? So why so confused by it? Surely it's just human nature, Frank.

 

Maybe, but they don't do their cause much good. I agree that the club might benefit from a change of leader and direction (it didn't last time, though) but find myself on here defending Lowe because the arguments against him are often so poorly thought out and unfairly biased.

[Wes Tender]

Maybe, but they don't do their cause much good. I agree that the club might benefit from a change of leader and direction (it didn't last time, though) but find myself on here defending Lowe because the arguments against him are often so poorly thought out and unfairly biased.

 

Why does it have to be that you feel that you're defending Lowe when you admit that the club might benefit from a change of leadership, especially if the net result was a unification of the fan base?

 

Why can't you just argue those points and posts that you think are misguided, misinformed, or factually wrong? There are some on here that manage to do that perfectly well without people labelling them as having any sort of agenda.

[NickG]

I defend him against the ott personal abuse and made up stories e.g. the team talk one last week -shown to be made up to be mischievous, this one -made up same reasons.

 

But I would welcome a change for the better as I thought we had before but the unrealistic moaning has gone from being too negative IMHO, to now just obsessed and comical.

Not aimed at all, some good debates last night without any name calling just different opinions

[Frank's cousin]

I defend him against the ott personal abuse and made up stories e.g. the team talk one last week -shown to be made up to be mischievous, this one -made up same reasons.

 

But I would welcome a change for the better as I thought we had before but the unrealistic moaning has gone from being too negative IMHO, to now just obsessed and comical.

Not aimed at all, some good debates last night without any name calling just different opinions

 

This is all anyone should ask for. I dont think there is anyone on the so called Lowe side who is actually on the LOwe side... sorry hear me out - There are those that see no relence is persoanl attacks or or rumour and gossip being used to beat the board - as its a distraction and actually merely entrenches Lowes own views towards fans rtaher thatn seeing them as potentially making constructive points.

 

Lowe has made plnty of error IMHO, some of which merit the desire to see change, but I simply dont see how making personal attacks contributes to that - nor to improving the situation. Its really that simple.

[aintforever]

I think it's perfectly understandable for fans to assume the worst with Lowe. Taken in isolation these comments could be interpreted in many ways. The thing is they are taken in context of other comments/rumours about the way Lowe works and other facts that we know about Lowe.

 

You would have to a fool to just ignore them, especially because of the cloud of secrecy that surrounds anything at SMS, gagging orders and such, which mean all we EVER hear is rumour/gossip and the odd comment from people like Basset.

[um pahars]

I stand by the fact that all I have seen is Bassett hint at Lowe wanting the club to play more kids... which is not what many would call interference.... and today we see that retratcted anyway so tell where the evidence is of 'Lowe picking the side' - as there is none - which as stated last week - none on BOTH sides

 

Firstly, the Chairman/CEO & the Technical Director going on and on and on wanting the manager to play the youngsters certainly strikes me (and many others) as interfering in first team affairs (and BTW I think using on and on and on strikes me as being more than a hint).

 

Secondly, it was not retracted. In fact, Basset's follow up comments reaffirmed his earlier comments that Lowe wanted Redknapp to play the youngsters.

 

Thirdly, look at the title of this thread and the many posts on it and the inference and complaint is not that Lowe is picking the team, but instead that he is overly interfering in first team affairs. Very few, if any, have suggested Lowe picked the team under Redknapp so I've no idea why you (and The Echo) continue to try and shout down something that was never even suggested in the first place.

 

... but What confuses me nmost is this glee some fans semm to have whenever there is something new and controversial .... as if the fragile nature of the club is not bad enough' date=' there is from some quarters as desire to make it worse and teh perception that they are enjoying seeing that happen. Anyone could be forgiven that some that post on here actually support those down the road....[/quote']

 

If you think that anyone apart from a few weirdos get any glee from these sort of stories, stories which are part of the reason why we are so ****ed up, then you yourself are one strange character.

 

In fact, I find it extremely insulting and crass that you even stoop so low to suggest this is the case. If there are one or two who you really think are happy to hear such horror stories coming out of SMS then please take it up with them direct, but please refrain from tarring us all with the same brush, or inferring by using such language that our opinions aren't as worthy as yours.

 

It's just as lazy as the insinuation that people hate Lowe because he has ruddy cheeks, soots ducks and likes hockey. It may come as a surprise to you Frank that are many on here who are knowledgable on things, do like to hear all sides of the stories (or at least as much as is available) and are then capable of making up their own mind, without having to resort to such bias.

 

Do you really think anyone gets any glee out of watching our Club fall apart?

[rpb]

Do you really think anyone gets any glee out of watching our Club fall apart?

 

That is certainly the impression that I get from reading some posts on here.