um pahars

Many a true word spoken in jest!!!!!!!!!!! Let's leave it at that

Maybe we have to dampen our expectations of him and come to accept he may never be the same as the Killer of old. If he was, then he would probably be snapped up by someone in the top flight (or abroad) anyway. That said, I would probably settle for a 75% Killer just for his tenacity, leadership and the way in which he carries himself, which must be a great example to the many youngsters at the Club.

Wilde has 16.5% of the PLC's shares. Lowe has 5.6% of the PLC's shares.

Lowe has never sold his shares for the sole reason that no one has been prepared to buy his and his cabal's shares. After being ousted Lowe was quite open that he would sell his shares if a buyer could be fund to buy his and those in his cabal. To my knowlegde, Wilde has never made any announcement about wanting to sell his shares. His recent piece states that he would sell, but only if in doing so it was in the Club's best long term interests.

You may have a point there Phil. I certainly would prefer nothing to one sided spin on the OS and in The Echo. I would still like to see them come out to meet the supporters, but in the absence of that, I would probably vote for radio silence.

Is it a concidence that some of the viewpoints on here mirror the tone in the Premiership vs Championship thread (and how we now think the ar5se is falling out of the game, only after we have witnessed some of the probles first hand). There's always been a debate about Club vs Country, but I dare say if we were in the top flight, with a few players in the squad (and a few more on the fringes) and hosting Enland internationals at St Mary's, then we wouldn't be as negative as we are now.

Please ignore the: and overseen by Wilde). I've paid my fiver Mr Grant, so please sort the edit function out you slacker!!!!

I certainly wouldn't call the answer given to Stevn Squibb full, frank and open. In fact the response is pretty evasive and does not answer the question posed. For me, the question touched upon one of the most important issues, but Wilde failed to respond in any coherent or cogent sense. There were some good snippets in there, mixed in with some noddy stuff, along with a big dash of spin. If anything, this initiative just highlighted the shortcomings of a "write in with your questions". There is no opportunity to push for a full answer, no opportunity to challenge the answers given and it is basically a chance for those in power to rehearse their reply and use the Echo as a platform to provide a one sided response. Nothing beats a good old face to face grilling so I wonder what plans there are for Lowe & Wilde to face the supporters. Wilde states that the main reason we find ourselves with such fundamental financial problems is down to relegation and the drop in income (relegation overseen by Lowe), compounded by last seasons overspend (an overspend by a board constituted by Wilde, and overseen by Wilde). I'm not really sure how you link Crouch to the response given by Wilde. It was clearly aimed at the Fulthorpe consortium and was a simple put up or shut up. Whilst I'm sure talks will not go forward with time wasters or those without proof of funds, the directors would not be doing their job if they did not consider every oppotunity to find and answer to our funding problems (however these materialise). Some may be loons, some may be time wasters, some may be fishing and some may be real, but only a fool would dismiss any approach out of hand. I would imagine that they were doing exactly the same as Collins Stewart were doing before them. And this wild goose chase is the same wild goose chase that every team is on in an attempt to find outside investment. I presume you were much happier with the concept of LongLife Saint & Barry the Briefcase going round his photocopier clients in an attempt to find some funding:rolleyes:

Au contraire, he is quite clear that we cannot wash our face in this division and will need to rely on the sale of players to make ends meet The following quote clearly outlines this: In my mind, it is virtually impossible for any significantly sized club with a modern stadium to survive outside the Premiership on normal operational revenue streams, irrespective of how well they are run – certainly if they are to remain competitive at this level. Player trading is a vital revenue stream for any club in this position.

Dear Mr Echo Further to my earlier letter, please find the answers to the aforementioned questions. Yours sincerely R Lowe

Dear Mr Echo Further to my earlier letter, please find the answers to the aforementioned questions. Yours sincerely R Lowe

Is there an avater for GGGGGGRRRRROOOOAAAAAANNNNNNNNN? What next Dalek, "well at least Mussolini made the trains run on time" (sic), or, "well Hitler did at least bring on the idea of motorways" (sic)? I don't hate Branfoot, he doesn't consume me, but I think it's going just a little bit too far in suggesting he did a good job (in whatever circumstances)!!!!!!!!!!

I quite agree. IMHO, the change of managerial team was not driven by the need to cut costs, it was driven by a desire by Lowe to implement a new way of working, and Lowe will be judged on that decision (whether it be a success or a failure). I also think that the manager is the single most important person at the Club, and it would be folly to scrimp and save in this area. If anything, it is probably one of a few areas that for me that should be ringfenced when it comes to making cost savings. I would probably forego most other expenditure if it meant we got the right man in as manager.

Personally, I wouldn't call mere survival a "success". We just about survived last season, but I didn't run onto the pitch as I didn't see that as worthy of being celebrated after such a shocking season (mainly brought about by a totally disinterested Burley IMHO). Instead, it was more of a "relief" that we weren't going to go under. Success for me would be climbing the table and then ultimately getting promoted.

How about thinking back 4+ years ago when we were happily ensconsed in the top flight, and then imagine yourself being given the following choices: a) Would you rather we continued to ply our trade in the Premiership, or b) Would you prefer it that we were relegated? I just don't believe there would have been many b's then!!!

A little bit harsh when you think about Gray and Wigley for instance. The trouble there was not the sacking of them, but their appointments in the first instance!!!!! As for how long as he got, well, as someone else has pointed out I think he will be around as long as Lowe is here. JP is so much Lowe's man, that a sacking would be an admission of failure and something that I don't think Lowe would be able to survive. Unless Wilde (or the bank) lose faith, then I think JP will be here for quite a while (even if we get relegated), unless of course some rich group of arabs rock up!!!!!!!!!!

Could you argue that some of the hostility and opposing sentiment towards the set up is a historical and cultural thing in the English Leagues. we have never had this set up, instead the "Gaffer" is the sole man in charge and is aided by an Assistant Manager and maybe a Coach? Therefore "English" managers see it as a slur on their credibility and stature if they have to report to someone other than the Board/Chairman and don't take to not being the main man in charge of the footballing side. It would appear to be the norm on the continent, but has it always been that way???? And is it more successful, or just more suited to their cultural and historical roots????

Good point. I still haven't really fathomed out Wotte's role. Is it Head of the Academy (as he was introduced in the corporate ares before the West Ham game), is it in charge of the ressies, is he the DOF???????

And this is where the manager starts to earn his corn. We still have a number of players on our books who were told they were surplus to requirements and who were being actively touted around for sale. One would imagine that as a result they're not the most motivated of players and could well have a damaging effect on team morale. So the options are: a) try and bring them back into the fold, hoping their lack of motivation doesn't rub off on others. b) marginalise them and accept they are a drain on resources, but their sidelining is for the greater good of the team. c) try and loan them out over the next couple of months. d) come to a compromise agreement and settle some of their outstanding contract and let them leave as out of contract players. e) any other options.

I'm certainly not saying we just sit back and accept life down here, I'm just saying that as one of probably 15 other teams in the same boat, we are all just doing the same thing and fighting for probably one promotion place (assuming the other two are taken by one of the 6 parachute laden yo-yo clubs). For me creating a conveyor belt of talent is not a guarantee of promotion, and I would argue you actually need a cohesive battling side all pulling together under a strong manager (and including a few bruisers in there).

But any good ones from the next lot will just get poached as well! We are now well and truly in the lower pecking order and at the mercy of those Clubs that have the wonga. Additionally, it is a big ask to keep producing youngsters in such a quantity each and every season. I'm not sure any Club has prodcued such a vast number each year. Many clubs are aware of the benefits of producing youth (for your own team and also as a revenue generator), and sadly we are just one of a number of middle CCC clubs looking for that odd promotion place.

I may have to do a M on you and hold that in some notebook thingy to throw back at you at some point. Despite the savings, our finances are not on a sound basis!

I understand that Hockaday is the favoured one at the moment (with Henderson playing a role). My fear is that just with Wigley, Lowe is by far the dominant player at the Club. Poortvliet is a relatively unknown who is in deference to Lowe, as are Hockaday and Henderson. Has he got the DOF position that he covetted a few months back???????

"it is used as the shortening of "Sic Transit Gloriam" meaning (roughly) there but for the grace of God go I, therefore distancing oneself from the mistake and often passing silent comment on the writer of the original quote." and/or "It's Latin for "thus". Editors use it when citing a reference to inform a reader that the spelling or grammatical mistakes in the reference are to be attributed to the original source. Just another way of saying, "Don't blame me."" and/or "It is Latin for 'such'. It is used in prose when quoting a factual error, solecism or typo to indicate that the mistake was made in the text being quoted and not by the writer him/herself." and/or "When in doubt consult the Oxford Dictionary (for, to my mind, in so far as anything can ever be considered 'correct' in the evolving land of language it is there that correct is established): sic - A parenthetical insertion used in printing quotations or reported utterances to call attention to something anomalous or erroneous in the original, or to guard against the supposition of misquotation. Also as n., an instance of ‘sic’. Etymology: L. sic so, thus." Basically saying, I'm only repeating this ****** here and am totally aware it is ******..

You obviously missed the various (sic) suffixes :rolleyes: WWWWhhhhhooooooossssssshhhhhhhhh :smt117