Frank's cousin

Rupert Lowe and Sinister in the same sentance - blinking clever PR that (LOL ;-) -this is meant as a jest by the way!) London saint - the anti lowe PR Plant! ;-)

Think you have hit the mail on the head with PLC thing, because IMHO its sometimes why fans who probably agree on most things end up arguing...sounds confusing, but hear me out ;-). Sometimes, there is a debate where the PLC argument is raised - those anti plc present their case for why its a bad thing. I would suggest that there are actually very few who believe a PLC IS right for a club (the only advantages I see and like are the public access to audited accounts - we can keep tabs on them, and the opportunity for fans to own a small part of their club) - But these arguments come up against those who simply accept that we have it and cant as fans do anything about it (unless we buy up all the shares) and interpret it as an attack on the regime rather than the ownership structure itself - so two valid points yet subtly quite different being used by different sides of the argument and nobody being prepared to stop shouting or listen... My take on it is perhaps a little simplistic - its less about the ownership structure and more about what they are doing - I am not fussed whether we are PLC, Ltd, partnership or cooperative if it meant we were wining and had success (although cooperatives tend to conjure up images of marxist or Trot student groups!)

lol ;-)

All men truely know that length IS important ;-)

Me to, am the only one who reads my posts... or so it seems at times! ;-)

Sorry forgot to do the cartoons for you to follow

That a fair comment Daren. And I appreciate that you made it in such a balanced way. My response would be that When Sundance posted a while back, he seemed a just a tad... well extremely biassed, maybe it was his attempt to readdress the balance, but it was difficult to support it because the style and some of his points could easily be considered a wind up - I just stayed out of the resultant fray. When Nineteen arrived, even if he was Sundance precviously, yup it was obvious he was fighting the Lowe corner from the off but it seemed more measured and thought out. I dont agree with everything he says, but I can see the logic in his argument. As I can see the logic in many of the antis argument when not resorting to the drivel such as 'hes a C***' - that does the antis no favours if looking to 'convert' the middle grounders or Lowe supporters - I just find it rather churlish that responses too often focus on insult, picking at the accuracy of oneliners and stats when these dont alter the principle or logic behind it, in attepmts to undermine the poster rather than debate the issue. UP tries that with me all the time, which would be funny if it didnt reduce the oportunity to learn and understand his perspective - this radicalisation defended as 'passion' just makes some a mockery of the whole argument - and thats true from BOTH sides. TBH, I dont really care what anything thinks I am or believes about what or who I support, its just so feckin frustrating at times that the 'tag' just stops folk bothering to read and more importantly try to understand what you are saying - just respond with the undermining approach. Stops teh real debate and prevents both sides learning from each other. I stand by the fact its not as clear cut as many (on here) would like to believe - I also think that in many cases our perspectives are at the very least influenced by how entrenched we are in the nostalgia that follows football - the desire to seize it back from the corporates, the money men and the world of buisness - those who see it fundementally as a community culture first and foremost. I cant argue and would not dream to against those ideals because in an ideal world I would want the same. I just have the opinion that its impossible to rekindle the past, if we want the benefits that go with the corporateization of the modern game - something that for a club of our size, ownership structure and lack of independent finance has to rely on to an even grater extent. It means decsions made in boardrooms are often at odds with what wise football fans and experts from within the game believe are the RIGHT decsions. Naturally, this does not defend genuine mistakes, but it is why I and others will defend some of the decisions because they see the logic behind them despite them being more commercially driven than footballing driven. I guess that was my gripe when Wilde first came on the scene - he appealed to fans because a) they thought it was removing Lowe, but more importantly b) he made bold statements of gioving teh club back, football first in the agenda and all to be fuinded by the now legendary investors in the wings.... high sporting and football culture ideals but unrealistic in the corporate culture of teh modern game without having access to that funding. The same with Crouch, great and honorable statements that I am sure he genuinely believes in, but at the expense of what our modest means can maintain. Instead we see points of genuine footballing interest eg the merits of Wotte and Pearson, turned into a Lowe v Crouch argument with Wotte and Pearson as the pawns in the game, followed by holes being picked in minoe stats to defend or attack Crouch and Lowe and we never get any closer acknowledgin the cons and PROs of either side.....

Why not provide a response that can be understood? I notice you ahve not actually answered any of the points... once again attempting to undermine it with semantics...How would you define many? from this thread the majority are trying to give NIneteen a kicking, the same as on EVERY thread where someone expresses the POV from the 'dark side' - remember this 'many' is a releative term as applied to posters on here - If its good enough for the 'antis' to suggest that because the majority on here have that POV thats its reflective of fans as a whole and representative of the fan base, it would likewise suggest if the 'majority' on here seem hellbent on stiffling debate with personal and at time juvenile rubbish, its fair to use the term. ;-) Fine to called arrigant and ignorant, but if so it suggests the same for those making the sweeping 'anti' claims.....

DOH!!! Go to the ack of the class as you have (once again - this is becoming rather frequent ) misunderstood/interpreted the post - possibly due to cutting the quote in HALF ...who knows... Nowhere have I said many cant distinguish between different points of view/arguments - I stated and its clear as day - that: ''The problem with so many on here is that if you say you support or are in favour of or even understand why - ONE thing was done in a certain way by a particular individual, everyone assumes you support EVERYTHING about that individual - some just dont seem willing or able to grasp that distinction... '' See what I said there, 'grasp the distinction' between supporting someone wholeheartedly and supporting an element of what they represent.... and I stand by that, its why I and others are branded one thing or another because I happen to agree with some things and not others but that does not seem to stand in anyones way.... You do this time and time again UP, take a small snapshot of a quote out of context and twist and bend to try and undermine not an argument but the credibilty of the poster - which is kinda vindictive and a little sad that you feel its necessary to go down that route of attack in support of your POV... and suggestive that you have run out of rational argument? Its actually quite sad that there is a mob mentality, as soon as someone comes on here and speaks in support of Lowe, there are many attempts to undermine personality, credibilty and a refusal to debate the issues rationally.... Which if anything undermines the point of this forum.

How so? because I think its fine for fans to differ in their approaches and in their opinions? The problem with so many on here is that if you say you support or are in favour of or even understand why - ONE thing was done in a certain way by a particular individual, everyone assumes you support EVERYTHING about that individual - some just dont seem willing or able to grasp that distinction... I suspect for some its unwilling due to rational and objective opinion forming seemingly having no place on here at times of ferociaous politicking, and for some sadly I think its just being unable to do so...in which case they at least have an appropriate excuse.

Thats quite an arrogant statement - all fans have their OWN way. Being a football fan is 'about' whatever an individual whats it to be... we are all different and have different attitudes to football and are effected by the passions differently. Not everyone believes in the tribalism for instance, or the bandwagon jumping mentality, or in our case the need to hang draw and quarter Lowe and blame him for all ills - some see things from different perspectives - yet there are many whos simply WONT or CANT accept that people see things differently.

Do you have to be so obnoxious? Standing is part of football culture for sure and we should all campaign to get safe standing back into grounds like they have in Germany, but its the law right now to sit down EVERYWHERE, so if someone pays their money and buys a ticket in a seated area, why should they not be entitled to sit and expect everyone else to sit? Plain daft

One way would perhaps be to try sitting a bit deeper, bring them on and hit them on the counter as we always struggle to breaks such teams down and usually go down to the sucker punch when its hoofed up the park to the big loofer goal hanging --- usually after getting increasingly frustrated and then losing concentration - now is the time for Wotte to show some nous and a plan b for resolving this... we need 3 points tonight!

Think the pint is though, that we were expecting/promised to hit the ground running with an end to the mistakes of the past - Crouch did indeed put football first as he promised which is why it sits so well with fans - excellent froma pure footballing perspective, but its at what cost that is being debated, and that was a rather cavalier attidue to the finances from the way the cash assetts and player sales net revenues where very quickly swallowed up - ceratinly in major part during Wildes tenure, but also by Crouch when it should have been very clear the predicament we would find ourselves in if the the rot was not instantly stopped...

Think the schneiderlin deal was purely commercial - give a young player with potential a year or 18 months and then sell on for a profit - seen as a better option that 'spunking' 1.2 mil on wages for teh overpaid or on players near the ned of careers with no sell on value.... does not amke sense from a footballing perspective but does from a commercial one when in the mire financially - naturally you have to choose a player that will improve, shine and increase in value though! ;-)

To be honest I think GREATER restrictions should be enforced - naming as 25 player squad at teh strat of the season - only replacements allowed when someone is out for the season, transfers closed season only and no loans - the idea is to level the playing field so you are not penalizing clubs for not being able to carry huge squads... sorry but I think this would go a long way to leveling things a bit....

YOu cant argue with stats, but you can interopret them in many ways... NO doubt about it we have had far too many managers during the LOwe years - but we also lost that long term continuity after LM left NIcholl, Branfoot, Ball and Merrington, none of which had a long term tenure... so what happened? Sure Lowe has got through his fair share but if being honest, the genuine mistakes that needed to be rectified would be Gray, Wigley, Poortfliet and possibly sturrock/Wotte depending on your POV, which kind of means 6/11 were good choices and there are a number of reasons why these did not work out. So what changed after LM? Money in the game - the gradual and then dramatic increase in the differential between the top flight and the then 2nd div. During the 70s and 80s, there was not a great deal of difference a club could expect between income in the 1st div and income in the 2nd, it meant that relegation although painful from a fans perspective was not a diaster it has become from a clubs perspective - the pressure on chairman were different - LM took us down as a young manager but in an era where he could be given time to learn his trade - a few years later we win teh cup and then get promoted... Today the fear of relegation is not pride and ego dmage but purely financial - the pressure on clubs to change before its too late means managers come and go the moment there is a threat to the league standing - anything to avoid the drop...why else 'arry at Saints? First canme the change in gate sharing - reducing the income of clubs with the smallest grounds dramatically, then the Taylor rport and all seater stadia reducing it even further and then the sky millions creating the revue gaps... football changed and so did the 'patience' clubs could afford to have - thats not excusing Lowes revolving door, but its not just Saints - its most clubs of our size and position, especially those without a bankrolling sugar Daddy.

Think we can do it - just got to take each day as it comes and ignore what teh others are doing - we get to 51-53 points we will stay up...

I guess extra monies can also be 'found' in reductions in spending?

The problem with these kind of threads is that the different issues become enthreaded (no pun intended), Generally, i believe if we had all been asked to assess Pearson prior to the last game of last season, we would have all been in agreement that he had done OK and at the very least got us to the point where we could survive on the last day. We did and everyone was happy. Would say 99% were also happy to have seen him stay and be given a crack. Now his pros and cons have been placed in the context of 'how much better he would have done at saints instead of JP' - based in part on JPs performance, part on Pearson's subsequent success at Leicester and sadly mostly as a pawn in the Great Lowe Debate. The truth is that we would not be debating Pearson at all IF JP/Wotte had worked, or we had someone here even better - its all relative. Those championing Pearson as a solid no nonsense manager with potential are right to do so given what he has gone on to do, but it is irrelevent to the fortunes of saints, but is simply an excellent tool to highlight Lowe's 'great mistake'. Its one of those arguments which is loaded from the start because Leicester are where they are and we are sadly still in the mire, yet fails to take into account the different circumstances and presumes Pearson would have been successful with Saints with the kids. He may have been, who knows, but to assume he would not have had the same restrictions re experienced players is again jumping to conclusions. Its a bit sad that he has become the latest in a string of pawns in this argument, because those supporting Lowe are now undermining what he achieved with us. He kept us up, which under the circumstances was no mean feat, and its wrong to devalue that simply because the anti Lowes are using him to reinforce another percieved 'blunder'. Pearson does not deserve that.

'Pixie', must be the green leggings and those shoes my Mrs bought me where the toes curl up! ;-) Do you see me as more of a Ra Ra Girl? or Rupert's idiots? ;-)

To be fair though, the biggest factors are probably the quality of the games and poor form - eg league position + the current economics. Sure a board doing more to improve the playing side will have an effect, but I still think that if we have success then who is in the boardroom becomes far less significant in terms of the reasons given for non attendance?

The only thing that makes me think its less to do with the 'crouch' appointment (although it probably did not help Pearson) was that Wilde mentioned this type of 'plan' in April of last year at the SOS meeting - it was assumed by those (well me anyway) present that it would however not see the wholesale change to nothing but youth. I agree, that if there could have been a Pearson/JP/Wotte team in place it would have been better, BUt LOwe in his determination with his income generating conveyor belt idea, seemed determined to go the whole hog - I do think that my premise that as a result we saw Schneiderlin at 1 mil come in due to potential resale value versus continuing to spend that money on the last 12 months of more expensive contracts or on purchasing players near the end of carrees with no resale value, holds true. A logical COMMERCIAL decision, but a questionable footballing one. I get the luvvie tag because try and undersatnd these reasons/decisions rather than just saying hes a t*at and stupid... but dont really mind as I know where i stand on all this. ;-)

But Daren, as much as I hate to admit it, how many of our 'fans' filling the ground in the prem, came to see the oposition as much as saints - its the reason why despite the good run in 2003, we were still not at capacitythe followings season against teh likes of Bolton, or Boro, but could have sold an extra 10,000 when playng Man U....

I think its NOT just about finances - although have without doubt played a major part. I think Lowe has always been big on youth and the dutch model at Ajex - a conveyor belt of talent that means you have ready made replacements for players sold without the outlay, and the very best can be sold at a premium providing a decent revenue stream. He wanted to do it when Hoddle was here, but put it on the back burner... probably felt time was right when we survived as the only way was up. I dont think the mistake was in attempting to adopt the 'Ajax' system, but in taking it to the extreme - he probably felt it was better to invest 1mil in a young player who could potential be increasing in value and sold later at a profit, than a mil on an old player on his last outing/season or two with no sell on, OR on the higher wages of our older players. Simple economics dictating policy - His error was this extreme, not blending the two as we probably would have done HAD we not had the financial pressures - these swayed him to go the whole hog, afterall we had not done that before when in the prem. Its the assumption that this was done out of some pure unthought out stupidity that is simply wrong - it WAS thought out on those economic terms. The 'stupidity' was in the assumption that it be possible to get by on the approach without 2 or 4 experienced players to give a backbone to the side. I have to admit, I was hopeful, worried, but hopeful, and certyainly felt no worse than at the start of the last couple of seasons...