A question

[sadoldgit]

Lowe was rightly condemned on here for his ham fisted attempt to use PR plants on the forum.

 

We agree that was wrong.

 

Is it okay though for Crouch and his chums to use certain mouthpieces here for the same purpose?

 

Surely the only difference is that one lot did it for money?

[70's Mike]

Lowe was rightly condemned on here for his ham fisted attempt to use PR plants on the forum.

 

We agree that was wrong.

 

Is it okay though for Crouch and his chums to use certain mouthpieces here for the same purpose?

 

Surely the only difference is that one lot did it for money?

 

and that , if you are referring to FF, he is known to quite a few of us

[NickG]

don't think there is anything wrong with people openly backing Crouch, if they are fans and/or know him why not express their views?

 

Difference is Lowe apparently employed people to pretend they held a view to influence others.

 

 

By what do I know I am just a luvvie

Edited 29 January, 2009 by NickG
spelling

[Greenridge]

Lowe was rightly condemned on here for his ham fisted attempt to use PR plants on the forum.

 

We agree that was wrong.

 

Is it okay though for Crouch and his chums to use certain mouthpieces here for the same purpose?

 

Surely the only difference is that one lot did it for money?

 

I would say there's a significant difference between a forum member voicing an opinion and a PR plant who has no real interest in the club other than to make polarised posts in favour of his 'employer'.

[Fitzhugh Fella]

and that ' date=' if you are referring to FF, he is known to quite a few of us[/quote']

 

 

 

Mike, I don't think Bernard is referring to me or if he is he is barking.......

up the wrong tree.

 

For the record I only see Leon as being the lesser evil (to the club) compared to the other two. Until someone else comes riding over the hill (unlikely) my horse will have to remain tethered to the outer regions of the Crouch camp, but that's not to say my steed should make himself too comfortable munching on Lymington hay.

 

Hopefully you are well, Mike and might see you on Saturday.

[CanadaSaint]

There's a lot of difference between paying someone to act like one of us and promote an agenda for a fee (dishonest infiltration), and a well regarded and regular poster who has a strong relationship with one of the protagonists.

 

Sure, I get a bit frustrated with some of FF's angles but he's doing it because he believes in Crouch (not for money) and he's never, as far as I know, tried to conceal it the link.

[70's Mike]

Mike, I don't think Bernard is referring to me or if he is he is barking.......

up the wrong tree.

 

For the record I only see Leon as being the lesser evil (to the club) compared to the other two. Until someone else comes riding over the hill (unlikely) my horse will have to remain tethered to the outer regions of the Crouch camp, but that's not to say my steed should make himself too comfortable munching on Lymington hay.

 

Hopefully you are well, Mike and might see you on Saturday.

 

I am fine Dunc , not liking the cold weather, just wish the club i have loved for the last 47 years could sort itself out.

36 years ago Dunc we were leaving College , pin ball in the Dolly , football in the Parks , never gave a stuff who owned what shares just loved the club.

And people tell me things are better these days?

[sadoldgit]

I don't think the problem is someone backing one person or another.

 

I just think it is odd that if one person uses another to drip feed information (or misinformation) and that is seen as reprehensible then why is it okay for another person to do the same thing?

 

Surely what is good for the goose is good for the gander?

 

Personally I don't have a problem with it if people are upfront about their contacts. We can then at least make some form of judgement about the information and the agenda behind it (and I am not taking sides here one way of the other).

 

Wilde, for all of his faults at least did used to come on and chat in person.

 

Whether Duncan is being used by Crouch that I cannot say. But a man with an agenda is easily used by another.

 

Whether Duncan thinks it was helpful to tell us that our new manager was despised by the players when the club is desparate for unity I don't know. Where that information came from I don't know, nor do I care.

 

What does bother me is that is Lowe were to use this forum again to further his propaganda he would be crucified, yet it seems quite all right for any opponent of Lowe to use the same tactics.

[Fitzhugh Fella]

I am fine Dunc , not liking the cold weather, just wish the club i have loved for the last 47 years could sort itself out.

36 years ago Dunc we were leaving College , pin ball in the Dolly , football in the Parks , never gave a stuff who owned what shares just loved the club.

And people tell me things are better these days?

 

Tell me about it. I was watching one of those old "Big Matches" from the 70s this afternoon, swaying terraces, muddy pitches and no shirt sponsorship.

Those days are long gone and like those drunken nights up the Top Rank they will never come back.

 

What we have now is a pathetic quisling, a bad example of what a public school education can produce and.. well I don't know about Leon to be honest, I am starting to blow hot and cold to be frank, but in the absence of a decent alternative................................

[Snowballs2]

Lowe was rightly condemned on here for his ham fisted attempt to use PR plants on the forum.

 

We agree that was wrong.

 

Is it okay though for Crouch and his chums to use certain mouthpieces here for the same purpose?

 

Surely the only difference is that one lot did it for money?

 

 

Which makes it written prostitution for those that have prostituted themseves for money

[Fitzhugh Fella]

I don't think the problem is someone backing one person or another.

 

I just think it is odd that if one person uses another to drip feed information (or misinformation) and that is seen as reprehensible then why is it okay for another person to do the same thing?

 

Surely what is good for the goose is good for the gander?

 

Personally I don't have a problem with it if people are upfront about their contacts. We can then at least make some form of judgement about the information and the agenda behind it (and I am not taking sides here one way of the other).

 

Wilde, for all of his faults at least did used to come on and chat in person.

 

Whether Duncan is being used by Crouch that I cannot say. But a man with an agenda is easily used by another.

 

Whether Duncan thinks it was helpful to tell us that our new manager was despised by the players when the club is desparate for unity I don't know. Where that information came from I don't know, nor do I care.

 

What does bother me is that is Lowe were to use this forum again to further his propaganda he would be crucified, yet it seems quite all right for any opponent of Lowe to use the same tactics.

 

 

Bernard - I don't know whether I am more flattered or piqued by you equating my influence alongside Lowe's.

I don't post to be helpful or otherwise. I post what I am told and believe. Just because the club is desperate for unity does not mean I should hold back from posting what is I believe to be truthful. Would you rather the truth be pushed under the carpet in the name of unity? If you do then the validity of anything you say is severly undermined.

 

By the way are you going to Watford? I am and we could meet for a pint if you like?

[benjii]

What does bother me is that is Lowe were to use this forum again to further his propaganda he would be crucified, yet it seems quite all right for any opponent of Lowe to use the same tactics.

 

Which posters are you talking about?

 

If it's just FF then the difference is, as others have clearly pointed out, that he is a fan who has formed his own opinion which happens to have put him firmly in the "pro-Crouch, anti-Lowe" pigeonhole. He may post info but people are free to take it with a pinch of salt if they wish.

 

Lowe (or more specifically, was it SFC of SLH?) employed professionals to pretend to be things they weren't and post phantom opinions.

Edited 29 January, 2009 by benjii

[um pahars]

There are people on here that have the ear of Crouch.

 

There are people on here that have the ear of Wilde.

 

There are people on here that have the ear of Cowen.

 

There are people on here that have the ear of Lowe.

 

There are people on here that have the ear of .....................

 

Everyone of them is entitled to hold, espouse and argue their views and beliefs, even if they are somewhat influenced by those who they speak with.

 

If you cannot dee the difference between fans holding and espousing those views (no matter who they are influenced by) and professional PR spin doctors paid from the Club's purse, then quite frankly you're a (actually we already know what you are:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:).

[Amesbury Saint]

who are the PR plants?

 

I am slightly disappointed that I am neither a PR plant or ITK.

 

Also can someone confirm under what names LC, RL, MW post under?

 

Andrew

[sadoldgit]

I think you do have a lot of influence here Duncan and you play to the crowd. But fair play to you. If you have an audience why not milk it? And I do think you play your audience very well. I think you use your experience as a shop steward to good effect.

I also think you are very clever and very selective in what you post, but then that is just my opinion.

I am sure there are postive things about the club and the regime that end up on the cutting room floor but again, just my opinion.

I suppose my ongoing problem with your posts is that, as a historian, I expect you to dig deep to find facts, not just repeat tittle tattle in support of a well worn agenda.

By the way, I thought the timing of your nostalgia post was brilliant!

The timing of your return to the forum was also very clever, nothing for months and then when you sense that the forum is ready for some petrol you are on hand to throw some on the fire, I guess Richard Chorley will reappear soon too.

I know you think I am just an armchair bound wuss, fair enough. But I too love SFC and I think that at times like these we need to put personal agendas to one side and get behind the club. The whole club and not just the nice bits that have mostly now been consigned to history and the cuddly bits we liked and no longer exist.

You said some time back you would rather we get relegated than have Lowe at the helm. My position has never changed, I don't care who is at the helm so long as we don't get relegated. You have sided with Crouch who was one game away from relegation last season. If we are safe before the end of the season would that not be at least an improvement? Not in your book I suspect and that is where we shall always differ.

[sadoldgit]

Which posters are you talking about?

 

If it's just FF then the difference is, as others have clearly pointed out, that he is a fan who has formed his own opinion which happens to have put him firmly in the "pro-Crouch, anti-Lowe" pigeonhole. He may post info but people are free to take it with a pinch of salt if they wish.

 

Lowe (or more specifically, was it SFC of SLH?) employed professionals to pretend to be things they weren't and post phantom opinions.

 

I think there are several people here being fed information (or disinformation depending on your point of view). If you log on regularly it is not hard to suss them out.

 

Phantom opinions are loaded agendas, any real difference?

 

If I believed what was posted here George Burley was one step away from AA. Since he has gone on to a higher profile job wouldn;t you think that would have become a major issue? Or maybe he was just a bloke who liked a bevvy but had a number of people who decided they were going to pull him down on an interent chat show because they had an agenda?

 

Still, it was 99% certain the Pearson was staying and Saltz is just gagging to put money in the club he is just waiting for Lowe to go (oh that's right, he did go) so what does an armchair supporting wuss know that those ITK don't? Ah yes, I don't have an agenda! Sometimes it is helpful to be a fence sitter, that way you don't get sucked in by people who are out to use you!

[sadoldgit]

who are the PR plants?

 

I am slightly disappointed that I am neither a PR plant or ITK.

 

Also can someone confirm under what names LC, RL, MW post under?

 

Andrew

 

Think yourself lucky Andrew. At one point I was thought to be one of Lowe's PR plants even though I had been talking b*ll*x on the SaintsList for years!!!!!

[Gemmel]

I think you do have a lot of influence here Duncan and you play to the crowd. But fair play to you. If you have an audience why not milk it? And I do think you play your audience very well. I think you use your experience as a shop steward to good effect.

I also think you are very clever and very selective in what you post, but then that is just my opinion.

I am sure there are postive things about the club and the regime that end up on the cutting room floor but again, just my opinion.

I suppose my ongoing problem with your posts is that, as a historian, I expect you to dig deep to find facts, not just repeat tittle tattle in support of a well worn agenda.

By the way, I thought the timing of your nostalgia post was brilliant!

The timing of your return to the forum was also very clever, nothing for months and then when you sense that the forum is ready for some petrol you are on hand to throw some on the fire, I guess Richard Chorley will reappear soon too.

I know you think I am just an armchair bound wuss, fair enough. But I too love SFC and I think that at times like these we need to put personal agendas to one side and get behind the club. The whole club and not just the nice bits that have mostly now been consigned to history and the cuddly bits we liked and no longer exist.

You said some time back you would rather we get relegated than have Lowe at the helm. My position has never changed, I don't care who is at the helm so long as we don't get relegated. You have sided with Crouch who was one game away from relegation last season. If we are safe before the end of the season would that not be at least an improvement? Not in your book I suspect and that is where we shall always differ.

 

The first three letters of your board name, speak volumes

[alpine_saint]

What does bother me is that is Lowe were to use this forum again to further his propaganda he would be crucified, yet it seems quite all right for any opponent of Lowe to use the same tactics.

 

Oh, the irony....

 

Are you self-aware ?

 

You seem quite happy to be his mouthpiece. I am sure Duncan's tacit endorsement of Crouch as the lesser of all evils is no more premeditated and directed by Crouch than your incessant whinging about Lowe has been wronged...

[Fitzhugh Fella]

I think you do have a lot of influence here Duncan and you play to the crowd. But fair play to you. If you have an audience why not milk it? And I do think you play your audience very well. I think you use your experience as a shop steward to good effect.

I also think you are very clever and very selective in what you post, but then that is just my opinion.

I am sure there are postive things about the club and the regime that end up on the cutting room floor but again, just my opinion.

I suppose my ongoing problem with your posts is that, as a historian, I expect you to dig deep to find facts, not just repeat tittle tattle in support of a well worn agenda.

By the way, I thought the timing of your nostalgia post was brilliant!

The timing of your return to the forum was also very clever, nothing for months and then when you sense that the forum is ready for some petrol you are on hand to throw some on the fire, I guess Richard Chorley will reappear soon too.

I know you think I am just an armchair bound wuss, fair enough. But I too love SFC and I think that at times like these we need to put personal agendas to one side and get behind the club. The whole club and not just the nice bits that have mostly now been consigned to history and the cuddly bits we liked and no longer exist.

You said some time back you would rather we get relegated than have Lowe at the helm. My position has never changed, I don't care who is at the helm so long as we don't get relegated. You have sided with Crouch who was one game away from relegation last season. If we are safe before the end of the season would that not be at least an improvement? Not in your book I suspect and that is where we shall always differ.

 

 

Bern I give you my word the next good thing I hear about Lowe, I will post.

[alpine_saint]

Bern I give you my word the next good thing I hear about Lowe, I will post.

 

heheheheheheheh

 

And of course, SOGGY will reciprocate about either Pearson and Crouch, wont he ?

 

I wouldnt bother yourself, Dunc.

[Teddy Nutkins]

Bern I give you my word the next good thing I hear about Lowe, I will post.

 

Class come back Duncan, i fear SOG may be waiting some-time.:smt035

[Wes Tender]

Lowe was rightly condemned on here for his ham fisted attempt to use PR plants on the forum.

 

We agree that was wrong.

 

Is it okay though for Crouch and his chums to use certain mouthpieces here for the same purpose?

 

Surely the only difference is that one lot did it for money?

 

And in your eyes, do you think that they are otherwise equal things? Who is the better person when doing a good deed to others less fortunate? The one who does it for free, or the one who does it for money? Who does the better good for the club? The one who gets involved for their own personal financial gain, or the one who gives freely of their time and efforts just for the love of the club.

 

I ask these questions as it seems that somehow you feel the two things are the same.

[del boy]

Lowe was rightly condemned on here for his ham fisted attempt to use PR plants on the forum.

 

We agree that was wrong.

 

Is it okay though for Crouch and his chums to use certain mouthpieces here for the same purpose?

 

Surely the only difference is that one lot did it for money?

 

Life in general is not so black and white - do you think the newspapers, and media in general, are always giving an objective and impartial view of the world? (rhetorical)

[sadoldgit]

Life in general is not so black and white - do you think the newspapers, and media in general, are always giving an objective and impartial view of the world? (rhetorical)

 

No I don't but then if you read certain newspapers you will know their agenda. For example you know where the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mirror are coming from. You know that they will spin things in a certain way so you can read them with that in mind.

 

The last place in the world I expect to find impartial views is on an football internet forum, but it is always helpful to know where the information is coming from isn't it?

 

For example, Crouch has an issue with the way the club is being run so he will feed information here that supports his agenda. It may well be that certain things are being done in a certain way because of the financial situation, but it isnot in his interest to promote unity and stability - hence before the new manager has even taken charge of his first match we get negative stories about him leaked on here. Those with a certain agenda lap it up, but how does that help a club in trouble? Just makes things worse.

 

Same with the right wing media, they are loving Gordon Brown's discomfort but how does that help the country in the long run? Will their man be better at running the economy in these circumstances? Maybe, maybe not. But they will have us belive he can because that is their agenda.

[sadoldgit]

Class come back Duncan, i fear SOG may be waiting some-time.:smt035

 

Of course because what might be seen as good (and necessary) by some will not be seen as so by others with a certain agenda.

[sadoldgit]

And in your eyes, do you think that they are otherwise equal things? Who is the better person when doing a good deed to others less fortunate? The one who does it for free, or the one who does it for money? Who does the better good for the club? The one who gets involved for their own personal financial gain, or the one who gives freely of their time and efforts just for the love of the club.

 

I ask these questions as it seems that somehow you feel the two things are the same.

 

I don't think that they are equal Wes but the principle is the same. They are both using others to feed their agendas to the forum. It is just that one paid people to do it and one uses well know and respected posters who they know will get a good hearing. Two lots of Trojan horses but one bought and paid for an the other home grown.

[INFLUENCED.COM]

Who is the better person when doing a good deed to others less fortunate?

 

"No good deed goes unpunished"

[OldNick]

I have been accused by a couple of fans of being a PR plant.That was a lol moment.

I think I recall that during the Wilde bunch takeover they also had a couple of paid plants.I think it is ridiculous we have any.There are many intelligent people in all camps whop put up reasoned arguements.

what the club should do is be more pro active in fire fighting blatant mistruths on here.

Surely it would be easy for them to register under Official SFC responce and counter any real mistruths.The club web site is only a money making machine and that comes first.

[sadoldgit]

"No good deed goes unpunished"

 

Who decides whether a deed is good or not? Again it comes down to an agenda. I am sure the NAZIs thought they were doing the world a favour when they introduced their own brand of ethnic cleansing. An extreme example but I am sure you get my drift.

[sadoldgit]

I have been accused by a couple of fans of being a PR plant.That was a lol moment.

I think I recall that during the Wilde bunch takeover they also had a couple of paid plants.I think it is ridiculous we have any.There are many intelligent people in all camps whop put up reasoned arguements.

what the club should do is be more pro active in fire fighting blatant mistruths on here.

Surely it would be easy for them to register under Official SFC responce and counter any real mistruths.The club web site is only a money making machine and that comes first.

 

And this is part of the problem Nick. If you are seen as being on once side of the fence it is ok to call you a plant in a very perjortive sense, on the other and all you are one of the gang and it is perfectly okay for you to be used as such. I am sure there are more than Duncan (by his own admission) who are being fed information and repeat it here, but do they ever get called plants?

 

As they say, one man's terroist is another man's freedom fighter!!!

[Capel Saint]

And this is part of the problem Nick. If you are seen as being on once side of the fence it is ok to call you a plant in a very perjortive sense, on the other and all you are one of the gang and it is perfectly okay for you to be used as such. I am sure there are more than Duncan (by his own admission) who are being fed information and repeat it here, but do they ever get called plants?

 

As they say, one man's terroist is another man's freedom fighter!!!

 

I think it boils down to that whatever you read on here you have to make up your own mind whether you believe it or not or whether you agree or disagree with their opinion.

 

On the whole I enjoy seeing the good banter that goes on along with some very funny humour mixed in and although I don't comment much on the issues, that is mainly because someone else may have already written the same thing as I think on a given subject. The only time I tend to scroll through some of the posts is when posters start a slagging match with personal abuse which although is mostly reactionary, it is still not necessary.

 

Sometimes poster on here need to appreciate that other people will have a different point of view and should respect that. Nuff said!

[OldNick]

And this is part of the problem Nick. If you are seen as being on once side of the fence it is ok to call you a plant in a very perjortive sense, on the other and all you are one of the gang and it is perfectly okay for you to be used as such. I am sure there are more than Duncan (by his own admission) who are being fed information and repeat it here, but do they ever get called plants?

 

As they say, one man's terroist is another man's freedom fighter!!!

That is true.THe very anti Lowes believe they are fighting a just cause , whilst i always felt that I was protecting the club (Not RL) from unfair abuse. I have niw become more anti RL in so much he did not act quick enough regarding Jan and also put in Wotte and not an established CCC manager.Having said that Wotte's interviews have been ok and that has encouraged me a bit.

[SaintRobbie]

Lowe was rightly condemned on here for his ham fisted attempt to use PR plants on the forum.

 

We agree that was wrong.

 

Is it okay though for Crouch and his chums to use certain mouthpieces here for the same purpose?

 

Surely the only difference is that one lot did it for money?

 

I'm with Duncan. The reason people are calling for Crouch is that he is a lesser evil until a buyer can be found. He has offered cash that should provide us with a chance to get a decent British manager who knows this league and may have some fight, afew experienced players and thus a better opportunity of survival instead of Wotte and kids.

 

If Crouch was to take over - and I hope its soon - I hope he'd also employ a CEO who was charged with running AND finding a buyer - IN THE SAME WAY HE DID LAST TIME which led to the SISU offer...and how much better would be now; midtable with Chris Coleman????

 

 

I dont advocate waiting for Duncan's man on a charger to come and rescue us. I advocate going to the crossroads over the hill and inviting him to bring his horse to our oasis for a drink - you cant force that horse to drink but at least we may bring him there and/or recommend us to his friends. Sounds as if Crouch has tried to do this and IS still trying.

 

So it is a complete no brainer. Crouch is the one hope we have to avoid relegation and can set us on a path towards new ownership. As long as Crouch acts as a saviour and is then prepared to give up his Chair as early as possible, he is our man.

 

I think the vast majority also see Crouch in the same light.

 

Lowe is reinforcing failure (for a devious reason IMHO), Crouch offers a slim chance of success.

Edited 30 January, 2009 by SaintRobbie

[OldNick]

I'm with Duncan. The reason people are calling for Crouch is that he is a lesser evil until a buyer can be found. He has offered cash that should provide us with a chance to get a decent British manager who knows this league and may have some fight, afew experienced players and thus a better opportunity of survival instead of Wotte and kids.

 

If Crouch was to take over - and I hope its soon - I hope he'd also employ a CEO who was charged with running AND finding a buyer - IN THE SAME WAY HE DID LAST TIME which led to the SISU offer...and how much better would be now; midtable with Chris Coleman????

 

 

I dont advocate waiting for Duncan's man on a charger to come and rescue us. I advocate going to the crossroads over the hill and inviting him to bring his horse to our oasis for a drink - you cant force that horse to drink but at least we may bring him there and/or recommend us to his friends. Sounds as if Crouch has tried to do this and IS trying.

 

So it is a complete no brainer. Crouch is the one hope we have to avoid relegation and can set us on a path towards new ownership. As long as Crouch acts as a saviour and is prepared to give up his Chair as early as possible, he is our man.

 

I think the vast majority also see Crouch in the same light.

 

Lowe is reinforcing failure (for a devious reason IMHO), Crouch offers a slim chance of success.

May i ask.If LC took over tomorrow and did those things and we went down, whose fault would you say it was? I suspect RL would get the blame whatever.

May i also point out SISU did not help last season and they were closer to relegation than we were.LC also came out and criticised their position saying that htey had not done much good

[SaintRobbie]

May i ask.If LC took over tomorrow and did those things and we went down, whose fault would you say it was? I suspect RL would get the blame whatever.

 

I think their are two types of risk here Nick. Absolute and limited.

 

We WILL relegate under Lowe, probably then go into administration... and then something rather sinister thereafter.

 

We MIGHT relegate under Crouch, MIGHT find a new owner and MIGHT be able to rebuild.

 

So on balance I would opt for the lesser risk.

 

 

... but yes, holisticly ie since Lowe arrived and had influence I would apportion blame along the lines 70% Lowe's fault and 30% others of which Crouch has a significant chunk.

 

As I say, Crouch is the lesser of two evils. AND at least we get the fans back to support the team because of hope.

 

 

 

Coventry were not closer to relegation last season. Regardless, I am talking about NOW. Whether it was accepted or not - AT LEAST A TAKEOVER WAS SOUGHT. It was on the table and things would be different now.

Edited 30 January, 2009 by SaintRobbie

[Big Bad Bob]

I think their are two types of risk here Nick. Absolute and limited.

 

We WILL relegate under Lowe, probably then go into administration... and then something rather sinister thereafter.

 

We MIGHT relegate under Crouch, MIGHT find a new owner and MIGHT be able to rebuild.

 

 

 

Can you tell me what the lottery numbers for this week are please!!

[OldNick]

I think their are two types of risk here Nick. Absolute and limited.

 

We WILL relegate under Lowe, probably then go into administration... and then something rather sinister thereafter.

 

We MIGHT relegate under Crouch, MIGHT find a new owner and MIGHT be able to rebuild.

 

So on balance I would opt for the lesser risk.

 

 

... but yes, holisticly ie since Lowe arrived and had influence I would apportion blame along the lines 70% Lowe's fault and 30% others of which Crouch has a significant chunk.

 

As I say, Crouch is the lesser of two evils. AND at least we get the fans back to support the team because of hope.

 

 

 

Coventry were not closer to relegation last season. Regardless, I am talking about NOW. Whether it was accepted or not - AT LEAST A TAKEOVER WAS SOUGHT. It was on the table and things would be different now.

Robbie Coventry finished one place below us and as they lost last game of the season away at Charlton would have gone down had Leicester won,and so were closer to relegation than us.Dont believe me , read back and see others will confirm

[SaintRobbie]

Robbie Coventry finished one place below us and as they lost last game of the season away at Charlton would have gone down had Leicester won,and so were closer to relegation than us.Dont believe me , read back and see others will confirm

 

I seem to recall they had more chance of staying up than we did on the last day. But it is not the point I am making.

 

The point is that SISU then turned them into a midtable side with something to build upon with a good manager. Saints replaced Crouch with Lowe and a hair-brain scheme that was always destined to fail... and WILL.

 

I bet Crouch would say he wishes SISU had been accepted, we'd be building upon players right now that would not be out on loan and we wouldnt have a dodgy coach, strange and shady 'advisors', chairman who are no-where to be seen at a time of crisis, good players asking to leave and kids running around like headless chickens on their way to a good plucking!

 

But, as the question was more about the now... Crouch IS a better option than Lowe. We need him and a manager in place now though before we lose the transfer window and see Lowe turning up again at SMS, more protests, more division, more FAILURE.

[Teddy Nutkins]

Of course because what might be seen as good (and necessary) by some will not be seen as so by others with a certain agenda.

 

Nothing would give me more pleasure than to applaud some initiative brought forward by Mr. Lowe which takes this club forward. Sadly,IMO i have seen nothing to warrant that. I am not anti-Lowe for anti-Lowe sake.

[Big Bad Bob]

But, as the question was more about the now... Crouch IS a better option than Lowe. We need him and a manager in place now though before we lose the transfer window and see Lowe turning up again at SMS, more protests, more division, more FAILURE.

 

You are aware the window closes this w/e aren't you??

[slickmick]

Robbie Coventry finished one place below us and as they lost last game of the season away at Charlton would have gone down had Leicester won,and so were closer to relegation than us.Dont believe me , read back and see others will confirm

 

 

With the last game of the season, there were 3 teams above us that we could have caught by beating Sheff Utd.

Coventry were one of them, Leicester the other.(cant remember 3rd)

The comment that has been spouted that we would have gone down if Leicesters shot hadn't hit the post is wrong. Coventry would have gone down.

[OldNick]

I seem to recall they had more chance of staying up than we did on the last day. But it is not the point I am making.

 

The point is that SISU then turned them into a midtable side with something to build upon with a good manager. Saints replaced Crouch with Lowe and a hair-brain scheme that was always destined to fail... and WILL.

 

I bet Crouch would say he wishes SISU had been accepted, we'd be building upon players right now that would not be out on loan and we wouldnt have a dodgy coach, strange and shady 'advisors', chairman who are no-where to be seen at a time of crisis, good players asking to leave and kids running around like headless chickens on their way to a good plucking!

 

But, as the question was more about the now... Crouch IS a better option than Lowe. We need him and a manager in place now though before we lose the transfer window and see Lowe turning up again at SMS, more protests, more division, more FAILURE.

Robbie Iam confused what is best for Saints at present.The home defeats against Forest and Donny really knocked our confidence.That has opened the wounds and then there was an ourtpouring of frustration.Rightly so.

I still believe if we had won 2 more home games and say 5 points clear of the relegation position this all would not be so restless.

The fans were patient and would still be so as in principle they do understand the clubs constraints.

Edited 30 January, 2009 by OldNick

[SaintRobbie]

Can you tell me what the lottery numbers for this week are please!!

 

lol - no but I can tell you what they were last week and that is the point here

 

Last week we were heading down... and the week before that etc etc. If we dont stop doing the lottery we'll keep losing a pound every week... why? Because in Saints case the outcome may already be fixed, which explains Lowe's reluctance to sell or let in Crouch.

[SaintRobbie]

Robbie Iam confused what is best for Saints at present.The home defeats againsyt Forest and Dionny really knocked our confidence.That has opened the wounds and then there was an ourtpouring of frustration.Rightly so.

I still believe if we had won 2 more home games and say 5 points clear of the relegation position this all would not be so restless.

The fans were patient and would still be so as in principle they do understand the clubs constraints.

 

But we didnt win and we are unlikely to. So we have a choice: change and hope or die.

 

Truth is the transfer widow closure will indeed limit a new manager now, it may be too late. But as you rightly say perhaps with a little confidence and fight, perhaps, these kids may claw a couple more wins out and stay up.

 

But it wont happen with Wotte IMHO and more of the same. It might with a new manager who has a clue what hes doing and a fighting spirit... that ONLY comes with Crouch.

[slickmick]

I seem to recall they had more chance of staying up than we did on the last day. But it is not the point I am making.

 

The point is that SISU then turned them into a midtable side with something to build upon with a good manager. Saints replaced Crouch with Lowe and a hair-brain scheme that was always destined to fail... and WILL.

 

I bet Crouch would say he wishes SISU had been accepted, we'd be building upon players right now that would not be out on loan and we wouldnt have a dodgy coach, strange and shady 'advisors', chairman who are no-where to be seen at a time of crisis, good players asking to leave and kids running around like headless chickens on their way to a good plucking!

 

But, as the question was more about the now... Crouch IS a better option than Lowe. We need him and a manager in place now though before we lose the transfer window and see Lowe turning up again at SMS, more protests, more division, more FAILURE.

 

 

I'm with you that I think we would be in a better position had Crouch and Pearson remained in charge, but not by much.

As for SISSU, would you have really wanted them to take over us after the Sheff Utd game instead of Crouch ?

In hindsight maybe, but at the time would you have ?

[OldNick]

But we didnt win and we are unlikely to. So we have a choice: change and hope or die.

 

Truth is the transfer widow closure will indeed limit a new manager now, it may be too late. But as you rightly say perhaps with a little confidence and fight, perhaps, these kids may claw a couple more wins out and stay up.

 

But it wont happen with Wotte IMHO and more of the same. It might with a new manager who has a clue what hes doing and a fighting spirit... that ONLY comes with Crouch.

Again Robbie your faith is misguided.ONLY with LC is is a bit melodramatic as his fighting spirit took us to within 20 minutes of relegation under his chairmanship.He may be the best way of a really bad bunch at present but he definately not the only way.

[SaintRobbie]

I'm with you that I think we would be in a better position had Crouch and Pearson remained in charge, but not by much.

As for SISSU, would you have really wanted them to take over us after the Sheff Utd game instead of Crouch ?

In hindsight maybe, but at the time would you have ?

 

Mick - I didnt want SISU. Like everyone else I thought we were worth more than that, as like many others I believed we had a bigger deal on the horizon. I was wrong.

 

A better position 'but not by much' would see us safe and/or midtable now. Point is we'd be better off NOW with Crouch.

[SaintRobbie]

Again Robbie your faith is misguided.ONLY with LC is is a bit melodramatic as his fighting spirit took us to within 20 minutes of relegation under his chairmanship.He may be the best way of a really bad bunch at present but he definately not the only way.

 

Couldnt agree more and please read my posts again - he is not brilliant, only the lesser of two evils that are in contention.

 

If Duncan's man on a white charger appears I am all for throwing in my support.

 

But Lowe is NOT an alternative way. He IS killing the club and his motives for doing so unclear.

[Big Bad Bob]

A better position 'but not by much' would see us safe and/or midtable now. Point is we'd be better off NOW with Crouch.

 

See, there you go again with your Soothsaying and Seer powers!!

 

It's all conjecture where we would be with Crouch now, and people can't say we would be there FOR SURE.

 

We can only be SURE about the position we are in NOW and saying that it WOULD HAVE been better under LC is wrong.

 

Nothing wrong with saying it MIGHT BE better though!