Channon's Sideburns Posted 26 February, 2009 Share Posted 26 February, 2009 Right, many on here have questioned the protests against Wotte and Lowe, and the relevance regarding Crouch being installed has now passed taking into account his comments in the Echo. How about a change of tact? Lowe Out is not missing the point, but it is missing the target. Why? Because as egotistical as he may be, he cannot vote himself in or out of office. That comes down to his band of merry men, his supporters. Askham, Wilde, Richards, Windsor-Clive and Withers. Now, Richards claimed in his 2006 Echo interview that he : 'Holds his shares in trust for the supporters and the City of Southampton' -------- Any ideas on how the pressure can be applied????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 26 February, 2009 Share Posted 26 February, 2009 Do you have some sort of medical requirement to post at least 1 new thread a day about the same subject? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channon's Sideburns Posted 26 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 26 February, 2009 (edited) Do you have some sort of medical requirement to post at least 1 new thread a day about the same subject? How was Tuesday for you? BTW, last time I looked we were 23rd in the table and facing admin (allegedly) - would you prefer that we all stay quiet, pay £24 per game and accept that????? Freedom of Speech Edited 26 February, 2009 by Channon's Sideburns Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slickmick Posted 26 February, 2009 Share Posted 26 February, 2009 Do you have some sort of medical requirement to post at least 1 new thread a day about the same subject? He's not the only culprit. men in white coats n. (a) medical or laboratory staff, esp. doctors; (b) psychiatrists or psychiatric workers, usually (with humorous exaggeration) referred to in order to imply a person’s supposedly imbalanced or deluded state of mind. There coming to get you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 26 February, 2009 Share Posted 26 February, 2009 Freedom of Speech Massaging of ego more like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channon's Sideburns Posted 26 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 26 February, 2009 He's not the only culprit. men in white coats n. (a) medical or laboratory staff, esp. doctors; (b) psychiatrists or psychiatric workers, usually (with humorous exaggeration) referred to in order to imply a person’s supposedly imbalanced or deluded state of mind. There coming to get you. Ah well, as long as they are in red and white though. Imbalanced or Deluded...hmmm yes I see the relevance in your post......your assessment of Roops' Troops is the same as mine then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channon's Sideburns Posted 26 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 26 February, 2009 Massaging of ego more like. What?????? Says the 'impartial' moderator trying to goad a poster? So then, what is the £5 fee for then? Viewing only or only allowed to start threads on subjects that the Mods approve of??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bungle Posted 26 February, 2009 Share Posted 26 February, 2009 What?????? Says the 'impartial' moderator trying to goad a poster? So then, what is the £5 fee for then? Viewing only or only allowed to start threads on subjects that the Mods approve of??? I think the point he is making is that you and others start basically exactly the same thread every day. Why not just add your thoughts to one of the other threads that is discussing exactly the same thing, rather than deciding "hey, this is the same thing I said yesterday, but I think I will start a new thread about it so people can read the same thing again." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 26 February, 2009 Share Posted 26 February, 2009 What?????? Says the 'impartial' moderator trying to goad a poster? So then, what is the £5 fee for then? Viewing only or only allowed to start threads on subjects that the Mods approve of??? To be fair there is nothing in the rules saying that the mods have to be impartial in there own views. But im sure there is something about multiple threads on teh same subject so he kinda has a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 26 February, 2009 Share Posted 26 February, 2009 Says the 'impartial' moderator trying to goad a poster? Who said I was impartial? Im allowed to have my own views on any matter, "we" dont have a party line on the club, the squad or the board room. So then, what is the £5 fee for then? Viewing only or only allowed to start threads on subjects that the Mods approve of??? You can post on any subject you want (as long as it is within the rules), my point being that hardly 1 hour goes by without the same thread being started by the same group of posters. There are literally hundreds of existing threads that this could have been added without starting a new one. Of course, your ego has nothing do with that, does it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 26 February, 2009 Share Posted 26 February, 2009 Do you have some sort of medical requirement to post at least 1 new thread a day about the same subject? what about running a few stickies with quite open titles? e.g Views on current board This would cover your point and the many others. Protests organised ones, past ones, ideas, comments on Ideas / suggestions for future ownership/board general discussions, ideas, wishes Then the rest of the forum people can still start new threads for football comment, news, also any new on the board (rather than just our normal debate) such as OS stuff, Crouch's comments in press, even the trust release. Not given stickies much thought but just an idea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channon's Sideburns Posted 26 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 26 February, 2009 I think the point he is making is that you and others start basically exactly the same thread every day. Why not just add your thoughts to one of the other threads that is discussing exactly the same thing, rather than deciding "hey, this is the same thing I said yesterday, but I think I will start a new thread about it so people can read the same thing again." Bungle, appreciate and know what you are saying but the point you sometimes make gets lost in some of the longer threads...the 'Cardiff Protest' one for example died a death. This one is hopefully to re-focus efforts of those who wish to protest in a more structured manner - I firmly believe there are many unhappy with Lowe and Wilde, who like me, continue to support the team 110%, but feel that walking protests have had their day. Also, I feel that from Day one of the protests, that 'Lowe Out' was missing the point. For a Mod to say I am 'Massaging my Ego' is downright wrong and offensive. I pay to access and post on this site like everyone else - what next - a list of subjects we can start threads on FFS??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micky Posted 26 February, 2009 Share Posted 26 February, 2009 (edited) Right, many on here have questioned the protests against Wotte and Lowe, and the relevance regarding Crouch being installed has now passed taking into account his comments in the Echo. How about a change of tact? Lowe Out is not missing the point, but it is missing the target. Why? Because as egotistical as he may be, he cannot vote himself in or out of office. That comes down to his band of merry men, his supporters. Askham, Wilde, Richards, Windsor-Clive and Withers. Now, Richards claimed in his 2006 Echo interview that he : 'Holds his shares in trust for the supporters and the City of Southampton' -------- Any ideas on how the pressure can be applied????? So I take it your idea is to shoot him then...? Edited 26 February, 2009 by Micky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 26 February, 2009 Share Posted 26 February, 2009 Bungle, appreciate and know what you are saying but the point you sometimes make gets lost in some of the longer threads...the 'Cardiff Protest' one for example died a death. This one is hopefully to re-focus efforts of those who wish to protest in a more structured manner - I firmly believe there are many unhappy with Lowe and Wilde, who like me, continue to support the team 110%, but feel that walking protests have had their day. Also, I feel that from Day one of the protests, that 'Lowe Out' was missing the point. For a Mod to say I am 'Massaging my Ego' is downright wrong and offensive. I pay to access and post on this site like everyone else - what next - a list of subjects we can start threads on FFS??? what about running a few stickies with quite open titles? e.g Views on current board This would cover your point and the many others. Protests organised ones, past ones, ideas, comments on Ideas / suggestions for future ownership/board general discussions, ideas, wishes Then the rest of the forum people can still start new threads for football comment, news, also any new on the board (rather than just our normal debate) such as OS stuff, Crouch's comments in press, even the trust release. Not given stickies much thought but just an idea? it was only a suggestion! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
once_bitterne Posted 26 February, 2009 Share Posted 26 February, 2009 If it wasn't for Um Pahars, CS would be the dullest poster on here.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 26 February, 2009 Share Posted 26 February, 2009 what next - a list of subjects we can start threads on FFS??? You can post on any subject you want (as long as it is within the rules), Did you miss this one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micky Posted 26 February, 2009 Share Posted 26 February, 2009 Re-focus on the fact that some fans want Lowe out - must have pretty low attention spans if it needs to be refocussed every day..! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channon's Sideburns Posted 26 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 26 February, 2009 Who said I was impartial? Im allowed to have my own views on any matter, "we" dont have a party line on the club, the squad or the board room. You can post on any subject you want (as long as it is within the rules), my point being that hardly 1 hour goes by without the same thread being started by the same group of posters. There are literally hundreds of existing threads that this could have been added without starting a new one. Of course, your ego has nothing do with that, does it? I think to be fair Pancake you are exaggerating a little here regarding 'every hour there's a new thread from the same group of posters'. What group is that then? The Anti-Lowe Alliance???? Have I missed joining something? The only true identity of someone on here I know of is FF - this isn't organised posting of threads, it's fans who have had enough of Lowe and Wilde!!! 'Reflecting Opinions' - isn't that what it is all about???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channon's Sideburns Posted 26 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 26 February, 2009 it was only a suggestion! Timing of posts eh ??!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 26 February, 2009 Share Posted 26 February, 2009 What is to over looked is this; Only the shareholders will/can vote on the issue. If teh majority believe that what teh boardis currently doing is the best way forward for shareholder interest and value - or they are best placed to try and rescue the current situation - which considerig they represent 46% of shareholder interest we can assume they CARE a great deal about avoiding the club going down the pan - then they will keep them in , when the majority dont, out they go. The problems we have really stem from the very simple fact that often the needs of the shareholders take priority over the needs of the club from a footballing perspective, especially when in financial turmoil - its almost impossible for fans to reconcile the two or differentiate between the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bungle Posted 26 February, 2009 Share Posted 26 February, 2009 Bungle, appreciate and know what you are saying but the point you sometimes make gets lost in some of the longer threads...the 'Cardiff Protest' one for example died a death. This one is hopefully to re-focus efforts of those who wish to protest in a more structured manner - I firmly believe there are many unhappy with Lowe and Wilde, who like me, continue to support the team 110%, but feel that walking protests have had their day. Also, I feel that from Day one of the protests, that 'Lowe Out' was missing the point. For a Mod to say I am 'Massaging my Ego' is downright wrong and offensive. I pay to access and post on this site like everyone else - what next - a list of subjects we can start threads on FFS??? To be fair, while I can see that point sometimes, there is a thread on Mike Richards which currently has 7 posts in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channon's Sideburns Posted 26 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 26 February, 2009 What is to over looked is this; Only the shareholders will/can vote on the issue. If teh majority believe that what teh boardis currently doing is the best way forward for shareholder interest and value - or they are best placed to try and rescue the current situation - which considerig they represent 46% of shareholder interest we can assume they CARE a great deal about avoiding the club going down the pan - then they will keep them in , when the majority dont, out they go. The problems we have really stem from the very simple fact that often the needs of the shareholders take priority over the needs of the club from a footballing perspective, especially when in financial turmoil - its almost impossible for fans to reconcile the two or differentiate between the two. Agree Frank, So would the shareholders not be very concerned about the reduction in the share price since Lowe's return? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 26 February, 2009 Share Posted 26 February, 2009 Agree Frank, So would the shareholders not be very concerned about the reduction in the share price since Lowe's return? Naturally they would, but I think they will also recognise that for some bizarre and strange reason the share price is hardly ever linked to footballing success - (2003 cup run summer, shareprice 27p - Relegation from prem shareprice 34p and climbing due to to takeover rumours and major share purchases etc) yes, the lack of liquidity plays its part, but generally, I think those with share investmnets have done this for the LONG term so will not be currently over worried about the shareprice but will be about administration. They will be looking for the best options to avoid this. My biggest problem with CRouch seemed to be his desire to do the footballing bit well, but with no 'apparent' regard for how we financed it - for him the risk was justified by the potential reward - Lowe and Wilde saw this as a mjor flaw in proceedings and thus felt they should step in.... its all gone paer shaped. I dont liek teh old I told you so so rubbish, but I really hoped that when Wilde first arrived and then Crouch and they were talking about 'evolution' not revolution and they seemed to be talking that they should ahve dione EVERYTHING to make it work as a three way - because its the bitterness and mud slinging following the boardroom coup that is now preventing this.... they dont seem to have learned from the 'dont burn your bridges' saying.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 26 February, 2009 Share Posted 26 February, 2009 I think to be fair Pancake you are exaggerating a little here regarding 'every hour there's a new thread from the same group of posters'. What group is that then? The Anti-Lowe Alliance???? Have I missed joining something? The only true identity of someone on here I know of is FF - this isn't organised posting of threads, it's fans who have had enough of Lowe and Wilde!!! 'Reflecting Opinions' - isn't that what it is all about???? I revealed my true identity yesterday and wished I hadnt. I have been mobbed at work and the phone is ringing off the hook. If only I was as popular as Mr Lowe!!!! in all seriousness though you know exactly what was meant by the same group of posters. Occasionally they come up with a thread that stirs some debate and people from all sides of the argument are able to get points accross and maybe change some opinions. That seems to come at the expence of many more threads basically having a rant at exactly the same thing with very little substance that hasnt been spouted off on an unlimitted number of other threads. The argument becomes boring rather than making anyone re-focus on anything. Just my opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 26 February, 2009 Share Posted 26 February, 2009 DO NOT make sarcastic comments or imply that a thread is "boring" just because it doesn't interest you. If it doesn't interest you, please simply ignore the thread. If a particular user appears to irritate you on a regular basis, use the "Ignore User" feature. Do you have some sort of medical requirement to post at least 1 new thread a day about the same subject? I think the point he is making is that you and others start basically exactly the same thread every day. Why not just add your thoughts to one of the other threads that is discussing exactly the same thing, rather than deciding "hey, this is the same thing I said yesterday, but I think I will start a new thread about it so people can read the same thing again." what about running a few stickies with quite open titles? e.g Views on current board This would cover your point and the many others. Protests organised ones, past ones, ideas, comments on Ideas / suggestions for future ownership/board general discussions, ideas, wishes Then the rest of the forum people can still start new threads for football comment, news, also any new on the board (rather than just our normal debate) such as OS stuff, Crouch's comments in press, even the trust release. Not given stickies much thought but just an idea? To be fair, while I can see that point sometimes, there is a thread on Mike Richards which currently has 7 posts in it. I don't think the title of the thread was particularly ambiguous, so it begs the question why, if you're not interested in the subject, did you even bother to open the thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
once_bitterne Posted 26 February, 2009 Share Posted 26 February, 2009 I don't think the title of the thread was particularly ambiguous, so it begs the question why, if you're not interested in the subject, did you even bother to open the thread? I thought it was a thread about a furniture removal company..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1965onwards Posted 26 February, 2009 Share Posted 26 February, 2009 Usual luvvie tactic of trying to stifle debate. Some seem to wish that this messageboard didn't exist. Makes you wonder why they come on here. Perhaps they would like only threads like "who was Saints best goalkeeper" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 26 February, 2009 Share Posted 26 February, 2009 Makes you wonder why they come on here. They do as their master tells them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 26 February, 2009 Share Posted 26 February, 2009 I thought it was a thread about a furniture removal company..... I thought it was a thread about lobotomy.... Actually, looking back.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyFartPants Posted 27 February, 2009 Share Posted 27 February, 2009 Usual luvvie tactic of trying to stifle debate. Some seem to wish that this messageboard didn't exist. Makes you wonder why they come on here. Perhaps they would like only threads like "who was Saints best goalkeeper" Does the process of debate really have to be explained or have I done enough here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now