Frank's cousin

I would put you on my ignore list as you never seem to make any sort of contributrion, but the comedy value is too great ;-)

Wilde may not give a sh!t about us true, in fact he may only have rejoined the fold for his own interests recognising that they would be best served from the inside - who knows and who cares would be by mind set.... OK so need to explain that one... was a bit flipant. Thing is this, whatever interest Lowe and Wilde have in football is ultimately irrelevent, If as some believe (and I am not one of them true) they are ONLY in this for self interest or ego, I am not sure I follow the rational that means it MUST be crap for Saints, because as I have said before, the only way they GAIN anything either financially or ego wise is if the club is successful and as 99% of the the PLC success or lack of it is as a result of what happens on the pitch, on the field success SHOULD and MUST be a priority for the baord. The problem we have are 1) they are more concerned about this LONG TERM, yet fans are far more interested in season by season which is our right, 2) They have made a series of errors of judgement which has set us back - thats all of them, Lowe, Wilde and Crouch 3) these errors have been compounded by some things just not working out as expected, 4) they have lost the confidence of their customers/fans as a result which means reduced revenues even further. From the clubs perspective this parliament uis all about trying to bring fans back - sure they propbaly dont expect it to be much more than a PR exercise, but thats the clubs perspective - if you believe that fine, you are not naive, and your cynicism is based on previous experience.... BUT its also an opportunity to make it what we the fans want it to be and if there is unity behind it from the majority, its power and influence WILL be serious enough to have an impact with the club. I say GRASP it, lets use it as an opportunitty to heal wounds and unite behind what we have in common, NOT where we disagree and thus present a very strong financial incentive for the club to listen. BUT if we do want to be taken seriously, we also have to be mature enough to welcome this, and coolheaded enough to engage in constructive dialogue and not just single agendas on personalities. I just think it would be a real opportunity lost as what this potentially is, is only limited by your own expectations, potential cynicism, fan infighting, and refusal to engage in POSITIVE and CONSTRUCTIVE dialogue.

Bit unfair to take that in isolation as I did go on to try and ratyionalise why it culd still be valid... are we really now such a cynical bunch? ;-) We do afterall here load of whinging and whining that teh club ignore fans, yet there seems a reluctance to grab this by the balls when offered - I appreciate that the concern is that it will be spineless and have no true influence, sure it wont if the fans go about it, dare I say in the usual way with Mr Angry backed up by Mr Verbally Agressive - as it wont be taken seriously - unify and aproach it with calm intellegence, gain trust and respect and i think we woudl be surprised as to what influence £8 worth of revenue could hold.....

The hard bitten cynics - the lot of you! ;-) Come on this is like anything, it will only be as good or as crap as you want it to be - dont underestimate the power and influence a UNITED, but respected fanbase could yield. Sure it wont be perfect, but come on is it not worth a go?

Such a body would never have real decision making powers - not whilst we are a PLC at least as only shareholders get to vote on such things, but thats not the point - The point is potentially influencing powers - such a body could if handled correctly, carry a huge amount of influence given the purchasing power of a united fan base - It has the potential to be more as a 'UNION' without the 'old school' association, provided its truely representative AND follows more of a Japanese model that the old UK one ;-) Outside the prem, fans contribute the lions share to te clubs revenue through gates and merchandice. We currently have no real influence because we are divided and those who have raised their heads above the pulpit have too often done so in anger, rather than in constructive dialogue and as such have not been given (rightly or wrongly) the respect that is needed to have any kind of influence, they are dismissed as 'lunatic fringe' elements - not always justified, but for not being prepared to listen to WHY certain decisions have been made or to acknowledge that the other side has anything worth saying. In addition, they have reacted angrily when confronted and so have lost the moral ground. If we as a fanbase want this influence to be positive and to be effective - that respect has to earned and trust established - we just need to make sure we have the faith in those selected to have that temperment. As to the selection process by the club : OK so its not 'truely democratic', and its easy to be cynical, but the truth is if the club genuinely want this to work, they will need to be sure that the 'committee' is geninely interested in making it work to, and not just there to continue an unwinnable single agenda battle 0- they will want fans they believe thay can influence for sure, but also its in the clubs interests to ensure these fans will enter this in the right spirit and attitude, otherwise why bother? Think about it, what is the point of setting this up, if the fans themselves have no faith in it and no respect fro the selectors or members? nothing whatsoever.The club would not be able to claim any positives if the thing is not credible with fans...

Just you Duncan - you will have been blackballed ;-)

Having issues , problems and concerns and disagreeing with the board/club etc - is NORMAL -and I would certainly not wnat to see reps 'towing the party line' as fans are NOT employees (unlike Wotte) but customers/fans - what is IMPORTANT is the abilty to RESPECT the club and present fans views in a logical and calm focussed manner and NOT to let the potential frustration when things odnt go as planned get the better of you.... That would be my concern with the suggestions above - or those where there is a 'History' that no matter how 'unfair' would lead tro prjudice from the clubs side. I have no doubt that IF fans can unite behind a calm and rational 'parliament', then it will gain 'influence' but to paraphrase Spiderman's uncle ;-) - with power comes responsibilty - and the onus will be on the reps to GAIN TRUST and RESPECT from both club officials and from fans alike - and hold that moral high ground no matter what is thrown at them. If recent activity at the AGMs is correct, then it suggest the names above are not suitable - no matter how passionate and committed they genuinely are. This will not work if it ends up in a single agenda mudslinging /p1ssing contest with the board members...and that woyuld be a wasted opportunity. From a fans perspective, we would also need to be both patient and REALISTIC. Patient because until there is consensus amongst fans and unity behind the reps, there wil not be enough influence and also because trust and respect will take time to establish - and realistic about which areas of the club the fans SHOULD have an influence over. Expressing fan concerns about board decisions, or providing fan opinion BEFORE final baord decisons are made is the aim... if you think it should include a mandate to remove boardmembers then you are sadly misguided as to what such communication should or could achieve. I think its a great opportunity to engage with the club, just hope that enough fans take it seriously enough not to blow it by storming in on the back of an unrealistic and hot headed agenda - you will ruin it for everyone and thats just plain selfish.

I would put it slightly differently. Those in power are not going to relinquish that power whilst they believe there is no one better placed to look after the interests of the shareholders. What we often over look is that the board should be doing whats best for the club, but the truth is their duty is to shareholders first and there will always be self interest whilst the board themselves ARE shareholders. In theory, and I know I am on a hiding to nothing here as the evidence says the opposite, the BEST and ONLY way for shareholders to maintain any kind of stabilty and minute potential growth in sharevalue is on the field success, is by the very definition of self interest in this case you would expect the board to be doing everything they can for long term growth - for which you need on the field success first and foremost. I honestly do believe the board - all of them would want to see this success .... but seem at times unable to make the decsions that would give us the best chance of it - not guarranteed, nothing is in football just the best possible chance. Most on here are fair folk who would accept that mistakes made in good faith are just that mistakes, we all make em etyc, but quite rightly what annoys the feck out of fans is Lowe's inabilty to acknowledge these, apologise, put it down to experience and move on - united - in a word humility - or at the very least teh perception their of.... but the same could be said for many of the names mentioned, pasionate fans for sure, but also at times driven by ego and own interests, as most of us are - but thats not the issue, its jst a simple fact that whatever we think of democracy, the attitude and prejudice that those names would bring to the table would make the whole thing a joke from the start - would just not work.

The point is though this platform has NO power directly and will simply be ignored if those representing fans only that agenda - so wopuld would the point be? Of course it should be democratic, but iffans believe that by voting for the single agenda types it would be the best way to go, i think they would be being VERY naive - it would simply fall at the first hurdle.... Its why after 15 years of Lowe he is still here and aparently still doing things wrong and not listening to fans - because of the very types and approach that has been taken. Lowe's biggest fear will be that one day fans unite behind a calm and reflective inteligent voice - because that has clout - whilst the are supposed to support the likes of chorley if they want to voice issues he'll be laughing because the moment it gets heated and antagonistic, he wins because the shareholders supporting him think the same as him. It might not be right or democratic, but these things only work with calm heads not firebrands.

Thats true if you you believe that this democracy will achieve something positive - In 15 years of Chorleyism has acheived feck all and merely antagonised. As mentioned above, it should NOT be a case of some antis + some luvvies (and Robbie needs to go and learn some statistics to get his numbers right), but selecting 6 folk who can see both sides of the arguments, and WORK with rather than against the club to get the Best for fans... this parliament will NOT get rid of boardmembers and to assume that as an aim would be limited and a waste of time, the fans aim should be 1) get some credibilty, 2) be taken seriously - by getting unity and thus being justified in a claim that the fans do have clout re financial contibution 3) let the club know rationally and calmly the fans POV on major issues and decisions and seek and gain influence where appropriate.

;-) as mentioned above, the majority are simply put off by the 'vocal hot heads'....

Thing is though Wes, should we really not take the initiative and moral high ground? - The Ghandi' approach of passive resistance that gains a momentum of respect by not letting hot heads get get the better of us and slowly grinding down resistance top accepting fans DO HAVE a credible voice and the intelligence to understand the complexities of running the club? To be taken seriously by flexing the financial clout we do hold? I suspect that one of the reasons we have never had unity and thus a voice that scares the crap out of Lowe, is because the 'hot head' approach puts so many off. Sure they might appeal to the 'radical kids' but unlikely to those with a more rational bent - even those that might agree with the underlying sentiment. The way I see it, the more rational folk keep getting up, dusting yourself off and offering not only constructive criticism but credibale SOLUTIONS the more will join the fold, even if that ultimately is leading to Lowe's departure, or by being successful, makes the departure or not irrelevant? Wilde may well currently be the champion of this, and because its him who some see as the villian for letting Lowe back in, we can see from this thread that those with teh most to gain from something like this wont even take it seriously, which I find a little sad. The best way of uniting fans is by adopting a common sense and rational approach - constructive dialogue will and between all parties. We do that and the club has no choice but to listen and change, because if they dont it will just attract more fans in support and the voice becomes even stronger - and ouside the prem, teh financila muscle we hold as fans if united will be taken very seriously. If we go in with a single agenda of Low/Wilde out, the door will just be shut in our faces and it will be stupid waste of on opportunity to build bridges and heal wounds. Its our choice, Just hope enough fans have the commen sense to make the most of it.

I gues who you want to nominate depends on what you believe such a thing should do or set out to achive, _ If you think it should be a thorn in the clubs side with a constant call for a new board, then go ahead and nominate some of the more vocal and prominent supporters - but I suggestthat as soon as it gets antagonistic with teh single agenda of Lowe out, teh whole thing will be wasted and down the toilet. These things firstly need to establish some credibilty = that does not mean they should be sychophantic to teh club, far from it afterall its abouts representing fans interests which can be at odds with the clubs or boards - thats perfectly reasonable, but what is important is that those selected understand that the ONLY things can be improved is by working CONSTRUCTIVELY with the club to acheive a positive outcome - that often means compromise on both sides to reach an agreement everyobne can live with. Whatever cynical stuff we might suspect, it cant be a bad thing for teh club to reach out in this way - The success or failure of it will largely depend on teh attitude of those selected, hot heads and firebrands may be popular with some fans, but will unlikely ever get sufficient respect (rightly or wrongly) to be taken seriously ss we know from Lowe's attitude to the 'lunatic fringe'. Seriously, if you wnat this to have ANY positive impact for fans of this club, think longand hard before nominating those who already have clashed swords with club officials - it might be 'funny' from the outside, but achieve feck all and make a mockery of it.

I agree, but others will say it was NOT paying enough that led to us not attracting better players and thus led to relegation - Lowe's 'wage cap' ..... Can you imagine the potential debt situation now if we had had a 'fan friendly chairman' whn in the prem, having a free for all on wages.... oh that happened at Leeds... we ahve a big debt but the majority of it was investment in the stadium - something that allowed MORE fans to go and support their club, which was no bad thing.

'spose they could have a 'smoking stand' as its outside?

LOL! ;-) Made me chuckle during my miserable morning in the office

Thing is a chairman could have NO shares and have a stranggle hold if the majority of shareholder believe he is the best for the job and looking after their interests.Part of the problem we have is the dicotomy between what fans believe is in THEIR and the clubs interests and what the bopard believe to be in the best long term interests of the club and shareholders - fans tend to be focussed short term in results, shareholders in long term financial stabilty - thats fair enough but does cause no end of problems and certainly contributes to the fans oipinion of the boardroom. What I find difficult to understand is why our shareholders are even interested inholding shares in the club as their is no real return in football, even in the prem, we broke even and the dividends were like 1p a share! when paid out and the shareprice has little to do with on the field success - eg 27p in 2003. I can only speculate that for Lowe its the ego/galmour of being invlved in football, especially when in the prem, Askam, feck knows, Crouch the fan/ego, Wilde property opportunities?, and the others? - dont some Oxford based AV company have shares as well, who knows why.

Standing can be very difficult/dangerous/impossible - well if fuelled by 16 pints of 'old scrote' or 'geeza supastrength' ;-)

Could also blame the ref at Arsenal - scoring their equalizer in the 7th minute of injury time when only 4 had been indicated....

I have never been one for saying 'i'm a better fan' etc - the truth is as we know we do have around 15000 or so fans that will go whatever - does that make them mugs or heroes? not for me to decide, but I do think they tend to be those fans for whom the love of the club AND the game transcends everything else, they might be pished off with Lowe, the manager, the team, but have been brought up with those old school values that include acceptance that in football as in life, you take the very rough with the not quite so rough (in Saints terms ;-)) - for them its less about our league position, and more about getting the fix and that includes the pain! We then have fans for whom there needs to be a reward to justify the price (which is without doubt now a contributor to attentence figures given the economic climate) - they go to football in hope that we will achieve a result and this will set them up, make them feel good, proud etc, same as they feel bad, miserable and often angry when we loose- eg get know reward. Again its another type of fan, not necesarily better or worse, but for whom teh club and players need to ensure provide entertainment that gives VALUE for money - why pay £28 for misery and poor fare? Many of the above will still go as often as finances allow, others as cyclicly - they go, we lose, they get depressed, decide its not worth it, buta after a couple of weeks need the fix and go again in hope - economies and long term bad results just increase the tiem between attendences - these folk are naturally more likely to come when there is a greater chance of decent entertainment - eg more likely to invest in an ST when in the prem than in the CCC - does not make them bad fans, just different. BUt, you could ask the controvercial question 'should support really be influenced by results?' My answer would be that support is not, attendence is when it costs so much - and the two are different. We also have the small minority (and thats NOT a dig) who genuinely believe that under the current circumstances and managemnet, teh only way to voice their anger is protest by staying away - if this was 20,000 if would work, if its 200 it simply wont and they miss out on their fix, their choice. What Wotte and tehe club are really trying to appeal to is those in the middle ground - the fans that would have an ST in the prem and go to about 10 games in the CCC - get them to come back more by appealing to their sense of loyalty when in need financially. It makes sense because we need the money and the atmosphere created by a larger crowd. Maybe its te language that upsets folk - afterall no fans like being criticised - (How dare they) but i would suggest that those genuine protestors are not that offended, becaue they KNOW how much they miss it and its painful, but are sticking to a principle - one I dont agree with but can respect - No, IMHO i think those that are annoyed by these comments are those that simply cant be arsed going because of the poor fare, but dont want to admit it (Dont see why not as its your money and you can choose what to do with it) - fans who like to believe they are totally loyal and the best and Lowe being a miserable **** is a convenient excuse not to go.

That just makes the team sh!te though - shame the supporters followed suite.... funny, I dont recall seeing the bit in the 'how to be a fan manual' that said we should stop attending the moment the team get crap , the manager is Crap or the board is crap - If its the fans that are the ONLY thing at the club that are not crap, then we should be proud of that...

Yup he does, no argument from me there - he made his decisons and he has to live with the consequences - All I and some of the others have been trying to say, is that despite misgivings from amny, there were no doubt reasons that were not all daft and in some cases quite logical for making them. Does that make Lowe evil?

Thanks for putting that across so well. If everyone was totally honest - its really just about results. JP/Wotte DID initially show promise in the way the lids were playing and I was genuinely hopeful and perhaps in hindsight naive that the results would come as the young side gained experience... this was hope was built NOT on somehow wanting Lowe to be vindicated, but purely because like many, I was enjoying the fact that we were at least TRYING to play in a style that was appealing and easy on the eye - for some of us at least we get enjoyment from that style, even if tinged with a bitter aftertaste of going home with no points. Had those results come, it would only be a handful of diehard antiLowers that would would still be going on about Pearson, but because they did not, those 'gifted with foresight' naturally as oppposed to benefitting from hidsight, now use the comparisons to try and undermine the decisions of Lowe. Pearson has without doubt shown promise since joining Leicester and he kept us up. But thats life and history and I dont think its relevent anymore - apart from as a LOwe beating stick that is...

Stanley

You cant do this on a monthly basis and we do have more than 1 home game every month - we will have 23 over a year - but as our payments are about 1.6 mil a year its is doable, but othertrhings will need downsizing - I am not defending it, but just trying to explain that Lowe would rather relegation than administration - IMHO. the business model of then developing kids and selling the best would be taken to its zenith as he sees it hopefully providing revenues to allow us to compete....