Frank's cousin

Its never too late Weston, because its the approach that is important, because we want to given respect and treated as intelligent fans with a real voice by whoever ends up in the power seat, not just at the moment whilst Lowe is still here. Its one of the reasons I struggled with Wilde and Crouch - because thhier blatent fan firiendly platitudes showed an equal disrespect for our intelligence, as if as long a sthey say the right thing we would not notice that what they were doing was less effective...

BUt surely if you believe this to be true, you can see why some wuld say ..UP for example, why not get involveed and change this then... its just like all those moaning about the government being ****e and then not bothering to vote, claiming they are all the same etc... If you want YOUR opinion and your ideals represented then you need to stick your head out and get involved. I like you shared a distrust for anyone who was 'postioning themselves' to lead the trust - afterall we all have a natural suspicion of anyone who is hungry enough for this sort of Power, I am no different on that front, and more pertinately, I did not share the majority of the same views as the trust board when they began and was reluctant about it.... BUT also reluctantly aggreed with their principles that they would represent what their membership wanted - democratically - and I would have to accept that that is the best way. I think unless you form your own fan pressure group, none will ever 100% represent everything you agree with as they should reflect the majority view, so the decsions should be based on what best represents you. If nothing exists, start something by yourself, or join the trust with the aim of changing how it represents the fans and members.

That made me chuckle - is that not really a sign of the times though Duncan, the money in the game having meant suits replacing the traditional fan-done-well-for-himself in the boardrooms and the politics of the game in general? As fans, we welcome the money and the elevated gap between the top flight and the rest when we get our 'rightful' share, yet are also bitter when its lost to us. Lowe struggled to win fans over from the outset because his tenure began as we were all adjusting to the changes in the game and as a suit, seemed tied to that new culture more than most. He then failed to win us over - his biggest mistake. At they very start he should have been engaging, outlinig his vision strategy whatever and demonstrating that maybe whilst not 'traditional' was with FOOTBALLING aims in mind, even if not always apparent to the traditionalists. He failed to grasp the importance of the community culture that was retained despite the the advent of the mega bucks premierleague, and seemed not to understand that fan loyalty was not something that demonstrated stupidity - the willingness to spend hardearned whatever slop was served - but teh very backbone of what sepearts football from other sports, that its an intelligent choice and an unconditional love more akin to having kids - you love them despite what they may do, and thats a very positive strong thing. If he had recognised that correctly, he would have LEARNED to engage, to see fnas loyalty as the positive aspect it was not something to take for granted and thus alienate fans with off the cuff slurs .... instead of recognising the 1000s of fans who only ever wanted good and wanted success, he ignore them and listened only to the minority vocal gob****es who were quite clear in their prejudice - Lowes biggest mistake was perhaps using this minority for his model of a fans and treating them all with that contempt ever since. Its why I do believe that only way to combat this now is by changing that perception if its not too late.

My only comment would be in the 13 odd years of Lowe, the gobbysheite approach has achieved what exactly? Lowe is still here and we are in the biggest mess. All the gobsheite stuff has simply reinforced Lowe's perception of fans as unintelligent 'klingons form the lunatic fringe'. Afterall, even when we were doing OK there were those (a minority but loud) gobbysheites still ****estirring in the background. The Trust is 'mistrusted' on here because they have tried dialogue - and dont simply call for heads to roll. The Trust I understand also want change, but I think recognise that this can only really be achieved when they themselves have influence - that ill come about in one of two ways - A decent shareholding that MUST be listened to or by being a trusted fan voice - a respected fan voice by the board. Whatever you think of Lowe and the others, one thing you should never underestimate is that they WILL respond when the fans actions impact on revenue. They have to as they have no other choice. But what we surely want is to have a say in what follows - a say in how the club evolves and progresses beyond a simple 'we hate Lowe and want him out' - afterall all that did was support other numpties who also failed. If we are serious about this, we should be talking, listening and planning and importantly developing trust and respect from ALL the major shareholders including those on the board - The trusts is trying to do this, but is hindered because its membership and shareholding is currntly too low - and this is because of these constant infighting amongsts fans who have only single agendas - Lowe out. I am not a trust member, I actually stay out of this because I dont think it would help them unite and attract fans from all sides by having me involved - as too many of you misguidedly believe I support Lowe. Its a shame, because teh trust represents the most democratic way fans can own a part of the club yet have a bigger voive that could have influence, yet its leadership who give up their own time is ridiculed by those who cant be arsed to get involved, for not being the very Gobby sheites thay believe is the only way.... Basically, if fans want respecxt and to be taken seriously, its needs calm rational heads NOT gobby shietes.

I think thats a very good point - but I guess its worth remembering that the emotions ssociated with the negativity that usually surrounds managerial change tend to make us miore negative towards the untried...

Haha ha thats rich - I dont need to explain myself to you, just because you are still bitter and twisted about this, and you have FAILED to respond to my point - But for those who dont know waht you are going on about, its quite simple some would argue that when being asked not to repeat something publically, its a mteer of integrity to remain quiet. You know darn well this has feck all to with it anyway - its just a SAD bitter and twisted response based on some sort of ridculous jealousy for you to even still be thinking about it. The mistake if any was in thinking it would help, the second was in making a promise that we could not keep if we went through with the meeting, but the biggest was even bothering to tell anyone given the infantile response it caused. Guilty of making a mistake for sure, but for you to question the integrity is laughable and vindictive.

Oh the old 'we will report back' and then did not thing? NOt embarrassed at all, ****ed off certainly for being put in that position, but not embarrassed. Took an opportunity to hera the man speak, coud have walked or stayed... how many would have walked? not many if they are truely honest with themselves.

Dont think many saw this as a glorious revolution at all - more tried to see what positives there were especially after the early season promise thats all really.

Explain please because you have lost me there...

I take that point - but this is part of the problem with such strong feelings on the Lowe angle - there was probably amongst some, a natural suspicion (wrongly fair enough in most cases) that the issues folk wer having with JP was because of the Lowe decsion and the feelings from the release of Pearson. All I have tried - in vain it seems - is to argue that the decision was not without some merit, albe it a risky strategy and that teh early signs were promising - I woudl also say that there was a more even split between thsoe excited by the early promise and those 'with judgement' - yet somehow many more are now wise after the fact...

But then is this more about the way we played and the manager not getting the best from this young squad that is at falut, the fact we only have kids, the system, or the initial decision? Now I am confused ;-) I suspect as always a combination of all of the above, but what does this say about it all?

Had forgotten about thier 3-4% ... never got why they bought them at over 50p I think?? Tax advantage? anyone know what the game was?

Agreed and probably his biggest feckin issue - lack of learning from teh previous mistakes and lack of advice - not sure he has folk around him who have the experience either let alone whether he would listen to them... Its my biggest gripe with the man.

This I have issue with. Like many on here I had NO idea about JP/Wotte, and we have enough experience to show that 'history'/experience' is never a cert one way or the other as far as managers go... be honest about this, we did not know. So yes at the time I thought the idea of JP/Wotte and kids playing a passing game, which we saw show some promise early season as positive (this is independent ofthe pearson issue by the way) - It might have worked out - I just find it incredulous that after the fact AND with the benefit of hindisght suddenly everyone is an expert and an 'I told you so' - there was naturally a good percetage of fans who were dissapointed Pearson had not been given his chance - I was one of them, but that did not mean I could not be hopeful of something different and especially when many agreed that there were signs of entertaining and enjoyable football being played - I believed the results must surely come. Its sad that they did not and sad that its not worked, but the degree of revisionism on this matter is at best interesting at worst astounding.

Why the insults? you seem to have lost it, if thats what you need to resort to. You make a very big assumption - it your opinion that no application of sensible rational thought and argument was applied... its a sweeping statement and you know it - In your 'expert' opinion it might not have been what you would have argued and teh conclusions may be different, but you dont know what was discussed and what went through the decision makers minds in making that decision. You never used to join the 'sweeping statement' bull**** bandwagon so whats changed? You were very vocal about the decision not to continue with Pearson and as you may or may not recall, I was also dissapointed in that, but that is NOT the question that was posed here. You have stated that of the three options you believe Crouch to be the best of a bad bunch - I have merely stated that I dont believe any of them have the answer right now...

Agreed, but as stated not sure what our contractualobligations were to the more senior players who all went on loan v budget etc - I think our problem was that some players were on higher wages following the Wilde/Crouch/Burley all or bust approach on promotion. Re the fence sitting, objectivity questioning of UP. He has made no secret that he supports CRouch in the current climate, thats his choice. BUt he does put across his POV VERY strongly, bordering on PR for CRouch, which agan is his entitlement - many point are good and presented in such a way as to make me and others think about the pros of Crouch which is again a good thing, but he also has recently started ignoring the full meaning of others posts, cutting quotes to suit (when they lose their context) and trying to create an impression that because I am not supportive of Crouch, anything that is said not even in defence of LOwe, but in defence of some of the decisions (and the two are independent), that it has no value. Its only because historically he has always been pretty balanced and fair that this is currently so obviously OTT ...IMHO.

True, although none of us know the actuall contracts of players to be 100% sure on what was really affordable and what was not...

Think you need to behave too UP. Firstly, You have made no secret of the fact that you are a Crouch supporter - that is fair enough, but I maintain that this does give your current postings a shed load of bias which is a very recent addition. 'Hypocrit or fool'? - surely you can do better than that... but hey whatever... You also know darn well that 'nothing to lose was in respect of the teh very necessary changes to the playing staff - now as you say we could have tried a different route that in your eyes would have provided a lesser degree of risk, fair enough, point conceded, but we are NOT arguing about the merits of OTHER plans but a simple point that there was some logiic in the decision, even if in hindsight, superior foresight or whatever, we can now all agree it was a mistake, it does not make that logic invalid - I am merely defending it because now that it has failed, its very easy to completely ignore any pros. This might be a mute point, but its actually too seperate mistakes - 1) deciding to go down the just kids route, and 2) appointing JP. I would say appoint JP was the bigger of the two. Lowe's mistake was in once again believeing that we would have enough quality to avoid the drop with JP and the kids as he did with Wigley and the squad we had then. Finally, correct me if I am wrong, but you did not seem to be so voaccly active about this back in June...

FFS - the logic is in these approaches have both pros and cons and if you had not let your love in with Crouch cloud your bnetter judgement you would see it to. We had nothing to lose FFS, were skint and narrowly escaped teh drop on the last day with players we could no longer afford. The logic was in teh fact if it had to be kids, then they were not going to get results the traditional way, but hopefully by playing a smarter more expansive passing game rather to combat the rough and ready style in the CCC - naturally it also had many cons and was a feckin risky strategy which as we have seen has failed, but that does not mean it did not ahve some logic- that is all I have said. You seem to have lost any objectivity.

Uhm Wrong decisons were made before lowe left, during Wilde and then Crouches tenure and now again under Lowe TBF...

Come on CS, you know what i meant - All we need to to do is at least judge everything in the same way - if its a bad decision appointing one manager that failed, then surely its a good decision appointing one that worked? NO one is disputing the fact that the RECORD shows that Wigley, Grey, JP, Wotte(after a few games anyway) posibly even Sturrock, were bad decisions. But ceratinly with Gray, Sturrock and JP/Wotte there was a logic behind the appointments at the time, even if we as fans feel the risks are too great.

Did you not read the post above Alpine? Kepp the insults coming though as with everyone you simply continue to highlight your ignorance erode any credibilty who once may have had.... Its so funny Alpine, that you never respond when youve been caught out - as for thsoe you maybe intentially missed it the above post said quite simply: Lowe's biggest mistake - not learning from any of them... This is now considered in Alpines distorted view of teh world as luvvish???? as the Yanks say Go figure?

Lowe's biggest mistake? Not learning from them

Come on Duncan, its a bit much dragging this one out the back catalogue of 'errors'. You know as well as anyone that it would have been greeted as another 'cheap option' at the time - 'unproven premiership manager' etc. The problem is with the benefit of hindsight there are hundreds of examples where had the boards of clubs NOT reacted to the panic or fans feelings of panic, they would never have let managers go, or would have taken a punt on others - and would have been seen as visionaries. Think about it - bet Coventry were kicking themselves about sacking Strachan...? Its an easy stick to use, but not really more than a twig. We as fans cant expect the board to have patience or take a punt, if we are constantly demanding sackings for poor runs, and slagging appointments as cheap etc. With time, ALL decsions turn out to be either good or bad, even if at the time they appear good or bad, there is no guarrantee they will stay that way.

Ha ha ... classic - Could you please explain WHO should be taking the 'necessary action and what that action should be? From where I'm standing the only way to remove them is shareholder action. Or should everyone have protesteed before the season even started? Jeez its comedy central here today.