um pahars

I was definitely one of them, but I didn't see that as an issue when I was calling for Wigley to be replaced. Sometimes it's as much about the appointment as it is about the sacking of managers!!!! PS I think it's way too early to judge JP one way or the other (and have said so for quite a while, although of course there may come a time to reconsider this view).

If you could possibly rephrase that again in English, then I would only be more than happy to engage you in an arguement [sic] (pretty easy to be the pedant you see).

Well considering you find it difficult to discern between opinion on a message board and the actions of a PLC Chairman, I suppose I shouldn't be too surprised at your lack of ability to be able to discern between typing errors and a fundamental lack of nous and understanding of a subject. PS I was within about 6 ft of my "mate" last night as he overtook me on West Quay Road. I'd do anything to protect him .

Would have liked him when Burley left (have no idea if Crouch & co considered him as an option). Would certainly have him back again and if it cost a little bit more, then I reckon it would be worth the little bit extra. The manaer is the most important man at any club and it's not an area I think you should be scrimping and saving on. However, I don't think Lowe would sack him as it would ultimatley undermine Lowe himself.

It might be about the same if you're in the Northam, but in the Itchen the atmosphere was awful (and even the Northam didn't sound up to it's normal level). However, I'm probably in agreement with Saint Lard in that as long as we get shyi7t attendances we have to cut costs and close corners. It might put some off, but I think the missing 7,000 or so is more the issue.

PMSL I missed the nit picking of typos he first time I read your post:smt064 I wonder whether we would stand for Lowe making typos:rolleyes:

Usual gibberish. Who is this mate I'm trying to look good.

A false economy or a necessary evil??? Due to holidays, last night was my first league match at SMS this season and it was a pretty soul destroying experience. Sitting amongst 14,000 Saints fans (7,000 down on the comparative fixture last year) certainly brought it home to me how far we have fallen. Having sat in Itchen Block 2 and 3 for the last few years, having to sit in Block 4 last night was just such a soul destroying experience. Of course, the missing 7,000 all around the ground doesn't help, but I couldn't help but think that by shutting the Itchen Notrth Corner (and also the Kingsland North) the atmosphere was massively curtailed. It was almost like watching a reserve match, and even the Northam looked boxed in and not able to spread out in to the adjacent blocks. So has shutting the corners massively curtailed the atmosphere (or is more to do with dwindling attendances)?? Does atmosphere even transalate in to points on the pitch?? Has shutting the corners put people off from coming (i.e. has it ruined their matchday experience) or is that more to do with other reasons?? Or was the saving (was it £150k) worth the sacrifice?? PS Had an e mail from a Tractor Boy who couldn't believe the atmosphere last night and picked up on the fact that the away fans were no longer boxed in between two sets of passionate fans.

The positives for me were: Davis - Looked confident and played a blinder. Draw - Snatching a draw from the jaws of defeat, sometimes you just need that bit of luck. Lallana - Loved everything about him. Pekhart - Looked lively after his introduction Moving up - We went up two places. Fans - Didn't sense too many getting on the youngsters back.

I've seen similar quotes on quite a few threads about how decent/good/ quality Ipswich are and have to say I just don't get it. They've won two of their six matches, losing three times and drawing once and are currently mid table. They're not on a flyer that's for sure. I didn't think they were that good last night (how many times was Stead caught offside) and really just outmuscled us in the middle of the park and made to look better than they are due to our own poor performance.

You don't have to agree with me and you may be right that some fans had concerns that he was undecided, but having spoken to him and others at the time I am firmly of the opinion that he was never going to side with Lowe I the run up to that EGM. Now if I had to decide who I was going to believe with he options being (a) nickh and others who had not spoken to Crouch and others at this time, or (b) someone who had spoken to Crouch and others at that time, then I think I would probably pump for (b).

Yes because that is what it meant and that is what I said it meant. Unless of course you know better than me what I was thinking FFS. Yes it is a noody internet forum, but also an engaging one at times. You were the one somehow trying to compare an answer I gave on here to one that a Chairman of a PLC might give and how it woud be received. Sometimes you come across as a bit dim, adn tis is one of those occasions. Do you easily forget what you post??? You were the one saying what would I be happy if Lowe gave such a reply which is a ridiculous challenge in the context of a message board. No I wasn't. The reply I received at the time was not from Crouch and I did not give the person slack when they replied to me. I was not at all content with the reply they gave and I challenged them at the time (what I have already explained, but which has been somewhat lost on you, was that my responses were not concerned about why one pursued that route, more to do with trying to ascertain why U & A thinks Crouch is the architect of all our financial woes). Once again you're gibbering on about something of which you have no knowledge. I have never intimated I have the ear of Leon Crouch. I think you get first prize for getting so much, so wrong in just one post. HTH

I agree. Maybe we're now at the point of developing a siege mentality and the real hard core giving 100% support to the lads. Have to say I didn't notice too many people getting frustrated around me last night. Most could tell they were all trying their best and not just taking the pay cheque and under performing. A win on Saturday would be good for both team and supporters alike (lose and I'll be shi77ing myself).

Just being totally honest, I have never rated him and after last night I am still of the same opinion. That's not being fickle just being honest of how I see him as a player. Would love to be made to eat humble pie (as I have had to on other occasions, notably saying Shearer misses too many one on ones), but just don't think I will be doing so. I was worried when people were saying he was our best player pre season against lower league opposition, because for me that was an indication of how poor the others must have been.

Exactly what the group who I went with were saying. The atmosphere and exprience was similar and the calibre of football was similar. By that I mean whenever I saw reserve games I always noticed there was alot of skill on show, alot of good passing, but ultimately everyone was a bit raw, it never ever came to much, players just tried to do that little bit too much (probably trying to impress), there were alot of basic errors and it was a sort of pinball football.

We all wondered whether it was down to stamina and the youngsters not having fully developed yet???? Or was it a mental thing and they were just drained??? Or was it that Ipswich stepped up a gear???? Don't now what caused it, but it was really obvious to everyone around us.

I think he's a great player and he would be in my team every week. It's just I wouldn't play him at left back!!!!!!!! There was a period in the second half where he was constantly beaten, gave the ball away and was like a rabbit in the headlights. I actually felt for him tonight as he is being played out of position and it's doing him no favours at all.

We were very lucky to get a point tonight. Very lucky indeed. With the exception of Lallana who looked quality every time he touched the ball, I have to say the rest of the team looked very poor. Outmuscled, outfought and outthought for long periods of the game. I am very worried about our defensive frailties and at times Ipswich were just walking straight through us. We looked good in patches, but sadly these were few and far between and never really led to anything. For the majority of the game I saw nothing that looked like total football and there were long periods in the second half that were dire. With not much to cheer me up on the pitch, I have to say off the pitch was worse. For long periods the atmosphere was dead and with about 13,500 Saints fans there it was fairly obvious why!!!!!! Tonight was a very sad night for me. As for the team: Davis - 7 - Some very good saves that kept us in the game (and was ulucky with the first goal). James - 4 - Looked uncomfortable (did he get outmuscled for their second goal) Cork - 5 - Looked good, but still very raw Perry - 5 - Didn't really do much that I can remember Surman - 3 - And that's only because he scored. the poor fela is not a left back and was given a torrid time. Dyer - 4 - Dire Wotton - 6 - Tried to put himelf about it and tried to lead the team Gillett - 4 - No surprise when he was substituted Lallana - 8 - A class above. Very skilful and capable player. The only one who looks as though he can play total football. McGoldrick - 5 - Won alot of headers, but just did nothing else John - 6 - Held the ball up as much as possible, but everyone else was playing a different game. Scheiderlin - 5 - Game passed him by Pekhart - 6 - Looked hungry and sharp when he came on Wright- Phillips - 5 - Never got in the game Sorry if that's pessimistic, just how I saw it. The lads certainly gave their all, of that I have no doubt, but too many of them are just not able to cut the mustard for me.

That's an interesting comment, particularly considering I have yet to see anyone mention that player morale isn't good at the moment. On the contrary, even though many are unsure about the merits of the current set up, I think we can all see that the team are playing with gusto and actually look as though they're busting a gut. I'm sure they're not overly happy with losing 4 out of 5 games (as would any professional), but they all certainly seem to be enjoying the experience and giving 100%. But anyway don't let that get in the way of just making stuff up.:toimonster:

The Hey Ho was actually used to infer that this was an entirely seperate area. Something we could debate elsewhere, but here I was focussing on why Crouch was the architect of our financial downfall (not) as opposed to the merits (or not) of Hone carrying on spending as normal. And if you're comparing a throwaway comment on a noddy internet message board with the formal quotes of a PLC Chairman and lead person of our football Club, then I have to say you must have a very faint grasp of reality!!!!! From day one Leon Crouch acquired his shareholdings to remove Rupert Lowe. If you ever spoke to Crouch from the period he bought his wedge of shares until the aborted EGM then you would realise he was never going to back Lowe. He certainly had issues with some of Wilde's team, but he was never going to back Lowe. Of course "hating" is OTT but it is there just to get the point across.

We do have a home game in hand though. Wrist slitting really should commence about this time tomorrow if we lose.

On a day to day and even a month to month basis (and even longer in reality) the PLC Board runs the show. You isolate and ignore your shareholders at your peril (as Hone ultimately found out), but the day to day business transactions and short to medium term strategy is set by the PLC Board. Wilde, Crouch and Lowe had no power as long as they all sat in seperate camps and Hone knew that. Having spoken to him at length over this time, he was running the show with no recourse to any of them (although he was also aware it would eventually come to an end). But as I said, none of the large three would call an EGM because (a) they were not working together and were never sure they would be supported, and (b) they couldn't agree what would replace it. Even at the Runnymede meeting in November every permutation for a new PLC Board put forward by each of the three shareholding groups could not be agreed on. Every time one of them put forward an alternative Chairman or CEO, one or both of the others rejected it. It was this stalemate that kept Hone in a job for so long. Up until last summer, I would have to say that the Executives ran the Club fairly well. The financial results they delivered for that first year were relatively good (if you're able to understand that in context as you seem to struggle with it). However, their decision not to implement Plan B when the paachute payments ended was, IMHO, a crass decision. Then was the time to retrench, but instead they carried on as before in the forlorn hope that SISU (or someone else) would prefer to buy a Club that looked the part. Ultimately that decision probably put a few extra million on the debt, so unsure how you condone such a strategy. Additionally, I'm still perplexed as to how you think Crouch was the main architect for all our financial woes. It just shows a serious lack of understanding of where the power has been over recent years. Crouch was an accomplice in the early Wilde days and he was one of three shareholders who fought amongst themselves and in doing so let Hone loose in the post parachute days, but his failings pail into comparison when compared to the main protagonists of recent years.

I don't like puppies;)

Theirs are on the shortlist to replace Jan;)

Hone and co maintained their position due to the power vacuum at the Club, caused by the continual infighting amongst the shareholders. As for why they never implemented Plan B immediately after the parachute payments ran out, then I have to agree that it has never been fully explained. The only answer I got from someone very senior at the Club was that the idea was to run the Club as a quasi Premership club until the January transfer window as this would make it more attractive to prospective buyers (SISU???), but if no buyer came forward by then, then the drastic cutbacks would then be made at that point (the January window as noted by Hone in his doomsday speech). I' not overly comfortable with that response for a number of reasons, but hey ho. Hone, Dulieu and co effectively had control the minute they forced Wilde to resign back in February 2007. If he hadn't have jumped then he would have been forced out as the entire PLC board (inc Crouch) were against him regarding his constant failure to secure the funding which he kept inferring was just around the corner. The upshot of this was that it meant the roud robin of shareholders was complete with: Lowe hating Wilde for instigating the EGM and removing him. Lowe hating Crouch for supporting Wilde and removing him. Wilde hating Lowe for "not running the Club correctly" Wilde hating Crouch for being party to forcing him to resign. Crouch hating Lowe for getting us relegated (and all the other stuff). Crouch hating Wilde for being a charlatan. It was this three way split and continual fighting that allowed Hone and co to remain in situ and carry on regardless. No two groupings of shareholders were prepared to align themselves together as they weren't even on speaking terms. Furthermore, any change in the boardroom might mean that one of their enemies might get their seat back, something all three of them couldn't handle, so instead they all sat back and let Hone defer Plan B. PLC boards run companies, shareholders don't. And that is exactly what our PLC board did. They ran the company as they saw fit. Hone and co knew it was only short term until the major shareholders finally sorted themselves out, but whilst the three groupings weren't prepared to work together they were left alone to do as they saw fit. They obviously had some contact with the major groupings, e.g. Hone and Crouch argued at every opportunity (regradless of whether it was in the Club's best interests), Wilde and Lowe were consulted over removing Crouch from the football board (but neither Lowe nor Wilde asked about Plan B at that time, they were more interested in sticking the knife into Crouch!!!). It was only in the Autumn of 2007 that the shareholders got together after the SISU approach focussed their minds. However, even then the animosity amongest the shareholders still shone through as noted in the Runnymede minutes with the action points including : Wilde to decide if he is prepared serve on a board with Lowe, and Lowe to decide if he is prepared to serve on a board with Wilde!!!!!!