Frank's cousin

Yes NO NO NO

All good except I would go for CRouch as Darling

I was not blaming Crouch Alpine, but pointing out that they WILL talk if they all see a common interest. I think at present (and yes this is speculation), its possible that crouch is not coming forward with anything new that will appeal to the Wilde/LOwe axis - thats not saying Lowe/wilde are right not to talk to him , just that its way it seems to appear... Please for once cant you just see, I am not defending Lowe/Wilde in this, but pointing out why I believe Crouch is getting no where? Personally, its why I have a downer on Crouch, because I dont think he has anything new to offer apart from the fan friendly stuff - surely you can see I can hold this view irrespective of whether I believe lowe/wilde shold be where they are?

Alps, these are grown men, and despite what we want to believe they WILL talk to each other if they believe there is something positive or constructive in such a discussion. Its easy as we all know, to point the finger, but you wont get an audience without at least offering some sort of solution taht his viable and for which there is the necessary evidence. As has been speculated when the SISU thing happened, when it became clear that it was really in their best interests to join together they did just that! Which COULD suggest that if Crouch does not get an audience, its because he is not presenting anything constructive? OK, you can argue that it took th trisk of personal interests being ******ed up to get them all to shake of theinfantile rubbish, but nonethese it proved it could be done.

To be honest, I dont think you will find anyone who judged on his own merits, would think anything other than positives about Pearson, even if some are still unproven, he showedenough potential with us to see he would be worth a good solid go - and for me one of his best assets is one that was realy mentioned, the dignity and intelligent approach with which he conducted himself publically - Lowe, Wilde and Crouch could have learned a thing or two from him. The problem is that Pearson has become a political symbol in the great Lowe v Crouch debate - simple as that really which is unfortunate for NIgel (not that he probably gives a feck right now) but it is a shame that his promise and achievent becomes the battle ground. From my part, hinting that there might have been some logic in the dutch thing when first muted, was smehow perceived as an anti Pearson thing, it was not, it seems everything and anything on here is siezed upon and used in some way - and yes, befor UP accuses me of being a hypocrite (or fool), I have done it myself albeit mostly with tongue firmly in cheek.

The only issue I have with this criticism of the AGM behaviour is that was this the correct environment to bring up the gripes that these fans did. It was not a fans forum but an official PLC AGM designed for shareholders to review the previous 12 months, approve the financial plans etc and ratify the board... as far as I am aware it was not an EGM called by disconted shareholders holding the board to account, nor a fans forum as a plave to air fans grievences. This does not excuse rude, impatient or stupid behaviour on Lowes part, but its also begs the question as to whether Lowes critics were wise to use this particular forum to air these particular grievences?

What a mighty victory over such a mighty opponent ! ;-)

You may well recall Alps, the questining of the manifesto, nothing concrete and the natural suspicion that the fan friendly football first rhetoric, digging MC and LM out of the woodwork was a mask was simply a strategy to gain control rather than a genuine 'new found love' for the club that the Wilde supporters were insisting was true...

Laugh all you like Alpine - 'self awareness' - now that IS ironic! ;-)

True, but surely you weren't intimidated by Alpine! ;-)

No the irony is in your own statement - critical of the 'boring' posts/posters, from you and true legend in the art of the rant that contributes nothing... and are thus boring Although, actually now i come to think about it, I am wrong here as maybe I cant classiffy them as boring because of their entertainment value... ;-)

I would agree on most of those points with the exception that they all MUST go. The reason for this is that I really struggle to understand why as fans we feel the ned to be so self indulgent about this - I appreciate and understand the 'emotional ownership' we feel towards our club and hense the anger and frustration when we see 'real' owners using it as a political football or what we perceive as a plaything for their egos, but the reality is that that what all these guys actually want is the same thing, success at the club because of what it would personally do for them, be it wealth, opportunitty or ego massage - and sure there are better more qualified folk out there, but these thre COULD do a reasonable job if they worked constructively together rather than trying to win opver fans in some crappy PR war - with all parties misfiring spectacularly - trouble is us fans being so self indulgent feel 'NOTHING can get better until they are all gone' - I would merely ay there will be no improvemnet until they feckin recognise that they need to work together and utilise all the combined skills they have in the most appropriate position - Thast what I believe the required change should be because simply cahnging the board mix to have another party outside ****ing in, or other tin pot locals with no cash leveraging some sort of takover aint going to make feck all difference to hat is happening on the pitch, whatever 'promises' we hear....

That suggests you dont actually appreciate the correct meaning of the word...;-)

Sorry was not aiming that comment at you by the way... I dont really have any more insights TBH, certainly nothing concrete... The football first stuff ? at a push I would suggest/speculate two things... 1) everyone knows that the perception amongst fans (much of it justified, but not all IMHO) is that LOwe has no interest in the game, etc not a football man, and how fans feel towards him is partly driven by this whatever else he does. To win over fans - position yourself as the opposite? 2) Wilde would have to be a major plonker not to recognise that in order to gain control of a PLC with a max 16% share he needs allies, from amongst those shareholders not allied to Lowe - eg the self professed 'Fans' - MC, Crouch. LM etc - so his approach is based on winning their support and fans support - get fans support and the uberfan shareholders will follow like lemmings - without due diligence? Just a theory, but it would make sense. So to me its more a strategy to get control than anything else.. do I have an issue with it? only in that if true it would suggest a lack of transparency - as with the promised manifesto investors - with Lowe he is at least transparent we know what we get - or do we only think we do because he is less focussed on winning over fans, which he has never had the need to because of his shareholder support. (his biggest misjudgemnet in my opinion)

Crouch as in 'in charge' - eg the crouch regime. Sorry if it was not clear, did not mean to insinuate anything, just that teh SISU deal was here when he was at the helm, and we know he was also talking to others, no the point was that I feel sure Wilde did not like the idea of being on the outside during such negotiations - As I understand it + speculation, I suspect Wildes position bcame untenable in Crouch's eyes when the 'investors' he promised failed to materialize, so he was out and the resulting falling out with Crouch about this kinda eventually done for Crouch..? BUt this begs the question, did Crouch not do due diligence on these 'investors' before backing the Wilde camp first time round?

Suggests to me that football was never really top of his agenda? Does that make him evil? Nah, just a businessman who saw an opportunity - if he makes a few quid on teh back of saints making a few more, fair play i think. I just dont like the whiter than white nostalgic uberfan who believes such things are sacreligeous, who is 'apalled by this' - quite happy and encourgaing that we fork out obscene cash to players and agents who dont have any loyalty or interset in the club either, yet a tad hypocritical when complaining about director remuneration or someone making a few quid...

Fair enough, it happens, but both FF and UP etc do the same thing, focusing in on a perceived wekness rather than responding to everything in a post... as I said who we have more time for i do think is dow to what is being said, not the way its said. I have never understood why we should shy away from controversy on here, everyone should argue their POV with conviction... and be prepared for the response. For me its more a case that it does often get too personal that is dissapointing. we all end up embroiled in it as It takes the patience of a saint (sic) to avoid getting drawn in.

Its a fair point - because right now the ONLY think that i can think of as to why Mr Wilde got involved and has played it to remain on the inside irrespective of who it means supporting is the potential of Property... long term plans be it Jacksons Farm or other land assets that might be worth ...not very much right now... but property always picks up and is a great long term money spinner. At the Illfated SOS meeting with him, he did hint that he felt the club had NOT exploited all the possible commercial spin offs of its assets. I got the feeling that he did not want to be sat on the outside whilst CRouch potentially sold lock stock and jacksons farm to SISU or the like or other local entrpeneurs who also saw the long term value in the assets. I am not against exploiting these assets IF THEY GENERATE INCOME for the club... eg unlike many i would ahve no problem if Lowe, Wilde and CRouch and teh other shareholders all ended up with a few mil if it meant 30-40 mil plus coming directly into the club... its the lower return high take greedy bastard approach that would get my goat...

Top post, kinda sums things up pretty well - although its can get hairy when the 'crowd' turns ;-)

That old chestnut - reopeated so many times even those who invented this baltent propoganda now believe its true... Sure Strachan left because he he felt he could take us no further without the cash to build on the 2003 season - although the realization that even with moderate success we could not hod on to players such as Bridge at a provincial club when the big boys offered triple salaries played its part to... but Strachan is far wiser than most fans and despite being naturally dissapointed, also appreciated we did not have the cash, could not afford to break te structure that kept us living within our means and avoiding the growth of debt as so many other clubs continue to do...

Thats being rather disingenuous really... Jonah argues his case, UP responds and it goes round, both sides not giving an inch - surely the purpose of the forum and the debate, if bored by it dont read it, but I suspect that if JOnah argued his case so 'tiresomely, predictably and boringingly' AGAINST Lowe, he would bee seen as a wise font of all knowledge....? Our perception on this too easily swayed by the stance/POV and the 'boring tag is the convenient excuse for those you dont agree.

End of the day, we do tend to overcomplicate everything - when the reality is really much more simple. Since relegation the overwhelming problem is simplt lack of cash. It meant Lowe spent nothing in his prudence, Wilde and CRouch spent 7mil or bust - approved by the appointed board who undoudtedly felt secure that tge money promised by Wilde in his campaign would be coming in shortly, but go to the back of the class at directopr school for failing to get anything contractually agreed before releasing teh cash reserves, Then Crouch, who gave the perception money was not aproblem - someone will invest next week so we dont need cuts - a perception he was mor interested in being popular than in doing what was probably necessary, now Lowe back, claiming we are so skint we need to use the kids only cos they are cheap.... is it any wonder that most fans are confused, negative and ****ed off? We, the club, are skint and it means misery. However, all I would add is Whilst there is a club to support that calls itself SFC, i'll be behind them.... lifes too short to deny yourself appropriate quantities of football misery - it flows through the viens of all fans - Its pre ordained the moment we make that mistake of going to the first game as kids, we are infected - prepared to be miserable should be printed on every ticket in everyland, even at old Trafford, because when they do finally have a seaosn where they get beat in all the trophies... and they will, it will infect their fans too. Cheer up, its part of the game and if you ask a 80 year old fan of nearly every club, they will recall ups and downs worse than what we feel ahs happened to us in teh last 4 years - we just notice it more now because of the cash crisis. We will ahve our time again, but we may need to wait a little.

Think some of us would say that its your three boils though and they ALL need lancing, jusr getting rid of one, will I suspect stiil see you going home alone.. ;-)

Similar reaction to that of JP and Wotte at the very least.

Fair enough, if UP had waved the finger at the naughty schoolboy at the back of the class, I would have hung my head in shame and ...said sorry sir.... but the reaction was well OOT... OK so its a fair point that we should not want all threads to decend into the old debate, ar... sod it....