Frank's cousin

St Marco You make a very intelligent and compelling argument here and thansk for taking the time to provide such a thorough piece. Hoever I do have major reservations about 'Saints' entering administration. We have to be honest with ourselves. A club is only a sbig as the revenue it can generate (eg fans turning up) when times are at their lowest ebb as we are now, and the shrinking attendences show exactly what would happen if we were to slide into the next tier down administration or not. Its this that worries me more, because without the income from the gate, we will never be in a position to get out of te mess. I think we have to ASSUME that NOONE iout there is going to be willing to inject their cash into Saints - we cannot base the hope of the club and its financial future on the premise that there MIGHT be someone willing to buy the club for £1 from the administrators who has the finance to make a substantial difference. I have always maintatined, despite not being believed most of the time to being indiferent to who is in the boardroom, being more concerned with WHAT it is they are doing - I am worried now, but also understand that reducing overhead is a priority despite the pain this causes from a footballing perspective - its the thought of admionistration and relegation that worries more however, which is why I just want to support the lads through whatever comes our way - As fans we are the one consistent thing in the life of a football club, some say we are the club, yet many seem hellbent on deserting in its hour of greatest need.

I think is in an over simplistic view though UP.... like it or not we had a wage structure in place which meant as a club we were able to break even most seasons or have 3-4 mil availbale for players etc - sometimes more if we sold, and as you yourself I believe some time ago worked out we did reinvest money from all sales.... yes I agree the various managers could all have bought more wisely WGS, especially had his share of duds, but the point is could we have gotten saha and Malbranque to come here on a basic of about 20K a week rising to about 30k with performanace and appearence bonuses? I dont think so and if they had been offered more then so would Neimi, Beatie and several others on teh books at teh time, breaking teh wage structure and opening the door for either 5-6 mil a year losses or £10 increasde per ticket... NO one is naive right now - the only reason we have signed 11 young players now instead of 2 or 3 experienced platyesr is a) because its cheaper, and b0 in the hope that one or two of them will be good enough to replace lallana and Surman when they bugger off in January for much needed greenback. I have just resigned myself to thefact that as a club we going through a bad period, financially crooked, and possibly heading for a further relegation, who knows... and yes I could look at that, get all worked up, shout and scream at the board, protest, staw away etc... all perfectly valid, but unlikely to ensure I get enjoyment from supporting the side.... or I can accept out fait at the moment because like it or hate, I understand the **** we are in and enjoy at the very least the kids passing that ball and at least trying to play the game it should be played - it probably wont bring success - we will probably lose the best of them, we will probably get beat more often than not by brute force, but What is the point of being a fan if you cant take the rough with smooth, if you cant support simply because its YOUR club and not have to worry about having egos massaged by aligning yourself with success only...like so many JCLs of the 'big four'? This is my club since I was 6 , thats some 33 years of change, turmoil, little bits of success, more misery, Than i can remember, but above one thing has never changed, that feeling when the lads in red and white run out. Especially when I see kids trying to play in such a positive way. (UP this rant not aimed at you by the way - just my feelings really - no longer got the energy for negativity)

I think the biggest and most common mistake in all this takeover rubbish is teh misconception that following a takeover we WOULD be any better off financially - IF and its a pretty big if we are taken over, the most likely is by another set of tinpot local business types with just enough money to prize away the shares but feck all else - eg no different from what we have now, but without the experience... Oh I forget, the last time taht was tried, those in power with no experience agreed to let GB spunk 7mil on gamble of promotion...which left us more in the ****. Lowe is an arogant, probably selfish egotist who seems at odds with the so called mythical 'real' fan (a real fan is ANYONE who goes to games and supports the club - not teh muthocal flatcapped working man ****** some still seem to spout), but whetehr you like him, are ambivulent or hate his guts, getting the high wage earners of teh books right now is a must

Its like all these things - what makes any structure work is clear lines of responsibilty thats all, and importantly that everyone understands them when they are first appointed and happy with it. The continental system where elected presidents and DoFs buy players and then p-resent these to the head coach to work with can work.... at clubs where the players bought would be on any coach's wish list! When you are buying Messi, Beckham, Ronaldo etc any 'manager' going to object? Where it does not work is where there is a limited budget and a manager needs to identify what he needs to suit the style of play they want - what gaps need filling and what personalities ned shipping in or shipping out where these decisons are a very difficult and fine balance on compromising say talent of players for character and professionalism or experience. The blending process if you like. I dont think any managers are too worried if they can say Identify they need Joe Blogs and John Doe and then get the DoF to go and get them and negotiate contracts etc - that woudl work (unless ythey miss the brown envelope that used to sweeten deals - is it any wonder that old school amangers all to a man say they should be the ones negotiating?;-)) And most managers would also understand that if their requests can not be met because the club can simply not afford it or the persanl demands are too high - where they dont and throufgh a hissy fit, it really bugs me - afterall the mark of a tryuely great coach and manager is being able to IMPROVE what he has - get teh best form the squad and get them to play the tactics as a solid unit ...at 'the end of the day'

Its like all these things - what makes any structure work is clear lines of responsibilty thats all, and importantly that everyone understands them when they are first appointed and happy with it. The continental system where elected presidents and DoFs buy players and then p-resent these to the head coach to work with can work.... at clubs where the players bought would be on any coach's wish list! When you are buying Messi, Beckham, Ronaldo etc any 'manager' going to object? Where it does not work is where there is a limited budget and a manager needs to identify what he needs to suit the style of play they want - what gaps need filling and what personalities ned shipping in or shipping out where these decisons are a very difficult and fine balance on compromising say talent of players for character and professionalism or experience. The blending process if you like. I dont think any managers are too worried if they can say Identify they need Joe Blogs and John Doe and then get the DoF to go and get them and negotiate contracts etc - that woudl work (unless ythey miss the brown envelope that used to sweeten deals - is it any wonder that old school amangers all to a man say they should be the ones negotiating?;-)) And most managers would also understand that if their requests can not be met because the club can simply not afford it or the persanl demands are too high - where they dont and throufgh a hissy fit, it really bugs me - afterall the mark of a tryuely great coach and manager is being able to IMPROVE what he has - get teh best form the squad and get them to play the tactics as a solid unit ...at 'the end of the day'

I dont think anyone can argue against the fact that its always a mistake to 'stand still' in football, and not getting in 2-3 players better than what we had after the cup final was a mistake that probably ost us our Premiership place....ultimately, BUT is it a mistake that we did not as a club risk the expenditure we did not have? We would have had to have borrowed this money (approx 12 mil) before we even looked at the impact on wage demands - UP mentioned we spent approx 20 mil on players bewteen 2002-2004, but probably only 6 mil of that was NEW money eg the rest was from sales - we did not fund the club by debt, but by living within its means - I dont think that is a mistake - in fact woukld it not bettter all round if it was a requistie of the premier league and the FA/UEFA and FIFA that all clubs must live within their revenue streams and can not build up debts which are subsequently written off by sugar daddies? - a level playing field and all that... We blame Lowe for not taking this 'risk' - but had we done so and it had not worked - eg Leeds - and we would be even more up the creek tahn we are now... which is not good. Its very easy to justify risk when its someone elses money and someone elses livelyhood, - especially as fans who yeran for teh glory that this risk might deliver even short term (there are still Leeds fans out there that say it was worth it!!!), but I am not one of them.

I dont think anyone can argue against the fact that its always a mistake to 'stand still' in football, and not getting in 2-3 players better than what we had after the cup final was a mistake that probably ost us our Premiership place....ultimately, BUT is it a mistake that we did not as a club risk the expenditure we did not have? We would have had to have borrowed this money (approx 12 mil) before we even looked at the impact on wage demands - UP mentioned we spent approx 20 mil on players bewteen 2002-2004, but probably only 6 mil of that was NEW money eg the rest was from sales - we did not fund the club by debt, but by living within its means - I dont think that is a mistake - in fact woukld it not bettter all round if it was a requistie of the premier league and the FA/UEFA and FIFA that all clubs must live within their revenue streams and can not build up debts which are subsequently written off by sugar daddies? - a level playing field and all that... We blame Lowe for not taking this 'risk' - but had we done so and it had not worked - eg Leeds - and we would be even more up the creek tahn we are now... which is not good. Its very easy to justify risk when its someone elses money and someone elses livelyhood, - especially as fans who yeran for teh glory that this risk might deliver even short term (there are still Leeds fans out there that say it was worth it!!!), but I am not one of them.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but is our situation not a bit more copmplicated since the football club is actuallyan assett of the PLC as is the stadium as SMS ltd? As I understood it teh PLC is the holding company for a number of fragmented companies such as the club, the stadium etc. I susupect however that its the football club that has the its debt/overdraft, SMS ltd has its loan and other subsidaries are either OK or have their own debts.... naturally, administration of any one part has an impact on another eg if the club was to fail, SMS ltd would loose its revenue that pays its loan? Is the PLC in debt or just the ltd companies it controls, anyone understand how this financial pie/mess is impacted on by teh financial processes?

Please correct me if I am wrong, but is our situation not a bit more copmplicated since the football club is actuallyan assett of the PLC as is the stadium as SMS ltd? As I understood it teh PLC is the holding company for a number of fragmented companies such as the club, the stadium etc. I susupect however that its the football club that has the its debt/overdraft, SMS ltd has its loan and other subsidaries are either OK or have their own debts.... naturally, administration of any one part has an impact on another eg if the club was to fail, SMS ltd would loose its revenue that pays its loan? Is the PLC in debt or just the ltd companies it controls, anyone understand how this financial pie/mess is impacted on by teh financial processes?

Must get alot in - my last post of today.... sadly ;-) I would have no problem with an alternative chairman - as I have have said on too many occasions to remember, for me its never been about WHO, more about what they do/are doing that concerns me. So I guess my question would be, what would Cowen or Salz be doing any differently to what is happenning at the moment that would change our fortunes? Wes, if UP has given a credible answer already, fair enough, but I have missed that and all I see is this continual debate.... all I want to do is go to the game and enjoy it as best I can - sure its crap at the moment, but I dont go to support LOwe, I go to support the likes of Surman, lallana and the other kids who still give a feck. If we continue to moan, and stayw away, what message do thes eyoung players get about whether its worth staying until the summer and helping this club? What does it sya about our support.... as I understood it, support was about supporting the club, not the personalities in the boardroom? I think we have too many intertwined issues that different fans are more interested in - there are some for who Lowe and Wilde out is some sort of strange cult fixation... not really sure about this group as it appears from their posts that this is tehir reason fro existence and more important than Saints - these tend to be those that bizarrely also suggest relegation and admin would be good!!! There are those that feel Lowe and Wildes big mistake has been this strategy of Kids and total football - and I dont think anyone could argue that its been a roaring success - I fully understand that POV, and to some extent agree, but for me its also about TIME, these things do need toime to develop, time for the kids to get experienced and learn etc... do we have the luxury of that time given the risk....? I dont know and obviously the longer we go without another win the worse it gets.... but could we have survived financially with the tried and tested model of experience and youth blend under a Pearson? Naturally in the crystal ball, YES of course we would be top half and pushing for playoffs and teh banks would be less stressed .... but is this true? Would they not have still insisted big wage earners are dumped from the books? Is there an alternative to this? Would someone else in the boardroom have taken a different option? There are also those who equally bizarrely, dont think anything is actually going wrong... but hey I'll have some of what they are smoking before tonights game! ;-) We need to decide on what is more important to us to understand.... are we prepared to accept that whoever is in the boardroom would be following this cheap approach to avoid the nightmares of administration and that if not the best option ceratinly not the worst and get behind the team and, Is it not really true that you can love the club, be indifferent to teh board or even dislike them, but ultimately, when it comes to supporting those who need it most - the team of kids doing their bit for the shirt, we should bloodly well get behind them despite our feelings towards the board? Speak again tomorrow....

Probably not.... but where was the 12 mil comming from he wanted? No onehas yet answered this in the years since WGS left, yet is always brought up now and again as if it hold the key to our fortunes.... FFS, WGS would have loved to have stayed at Saints had we the money to push on to the next step - BUT HE UNDERSTOOD WE DID NOT - WE DID NOT WANT TO BORROW MORE. He had taken us as far as he could with our budget - now if you want to suggest an alternative to raising 12 mil by borrowing from the banks, please let me know.. as I could do with some of that myself.

I would like to hear the alternative though to cutting costs right now... we have heard that he should have kept Pearson (more expensive - and would have wanted to work with the existing squad - also more expensive) - we know JP and the kids is the cheap option.... but the seriousness of the financial situation is amazingly overlooked by those who cry 'alternative' but dont actually go on to explain what this alternative should be within the same financial constraints - thats the problem really. Does weveryone actiually believe we would be selling players and loaning out others if we did not need to? This is where the urban myths spring up all over the place - the amount of short daft comments we have seen every year about how Lowes back pockets are overflowing with teh profits from teh sale of players..... yawn. This is not about feckin personalities, I dont give a flying feck who is in charge anymore, but I want to know what the alternative is at the moment to the cheap option because all we hear from teh moaners is that there is one, but no one actually syas what this is WHO UNDERSTANDS THE SERIOUSNESS' of the financial situation. This naivity is highlighted by those who believe administration, relegationa dn -15 points would actually save the club.... jezz it would feck this club up ten times more than anything Lowe is doing. We would never recover - no one is interested in us who has any money - sure, a 'local businessmen' worth a couple of mil might by a 1st div club for a £1 starting on -15 points and then what, someone please tell me because all I can see is a greater interest in removing Lowe than in saving the club.

Calling us 'klingons' - never have I been so insulted..... Believeing that you could compete in the premierleague, buy running the club within its income - eg a logiocal and sensible approach. Trouble is when alll about you are ****ing money down the drain from either sugar daddies or borrowings, you get left behind very quickly as we saw... whatever we like to think the answer to our 'crap' is money.

True, but he needs to learn to make his point and his argument in such a way as to get people to listen, not pis them off I have no problem with the principle of what he saying, but the way he says it leaves alot to be desired...

What to do when it looks like going pear shaped? The big question. I must admit to feeling torn between conflicting opinions. For me, football has never been so important that I end up 'hating' and slinging the expletive at those that make mistakes (except Redflaps who is a budgie). I think its about WANTING whoever is in charge to succeed rather than fail that moulds the opinion of 'these things take time' and wanting stabilty - clutching at the straws of 'Utd almost sacked Fergie' etc, to justify faith in what we are doing... but as any fan, not seeing improvement despite acknowledging that kids will be inconsistent with it is starting to be worrying. As you go down the leagues, its apparent that the styles needed to be successfull include guile and experience (as well as often a direct and unattractive approach) - its results through graft and physical commitment. Something that kids are always going to struggle with no matter how sweetly they pass the ball around when confidence is high. Yet the other side welcomes the spirit of this - the fact remains we are simply in the crapper financially and savings are made wherever despite teh illogical nature of it - we are bare bones and there is something about being at the bottom and trying with a young fresh set of youth against the odds that appeals to the purist in me... yet... I am not going to slag of anybody here - this is about the decisions made godd, bad and inbetween, NOT the personalities - slagging personalities and wishing for mythically saviours is the stuff of fantasy and makes for a blinkered perspective. JP I believe is up against it. Seems to me to be the sort of Ideal coach for youth development, and I certainly wont mock his ideals, because its a purists dream, yet its now appears naive to think it would work in this league from the off - Certainly if we suvive and manage to keep them all together we should see improvemnet next season, but those are two bloddy big ifs .... so what is plan B? We know that the odds of staying up, improving and eventually being priomioted are increased with a) money, b) an manager with experience in this league, c) players experienced in this league d) luck, e) more money - we currently fail on all 5 of these. So having seen Spurs boot their system out in favour of the the more orthodox (oldfashioned?) 'English' System, there appears to be a concensus we should follow suit - would Lowe and Wilde do this? I suspect no, 1) we dont ahve the cash to buy and pay teh wages of theose experienced players which is why we use the kids in the first place, and 2) Lowe do an about turn? never the guy's a stubborn git and will see this through to either it working long term or recuivership, whichever comes first - accept it you know its true. So what can we do? Feck all about that, but it is times like these that fans prove their mettle. If we can hold our heads whilst..... I guess now is the time to put the support back in supporting and hang in there - Its easy to be a fan when riding high at Cardiff, but if we really are that 'same set of great fans', then is now not the time to prove it? Tuesday, it will be cold, dark and likley a defeat, but hey whats new! get in there COYRs

apologies... sticky 'oo' key - I like many know its loose women who lose their knickers...

NOt quite sure how some of you are working this out - Sky and any broadcaster pick games for two reasosn only - what it says within the contract as a minimum number of home games each team is given and secondly perhaps more importantly sides and games that should genearted the best possible audience share and thus allow them better figures when negotiating advertising revenues - its really that simple. I think what some may perceive as bias is sometimes from the commentators or 'expert' pundits who they choose, often deliberately to be controvercial. There was perhaps the perception of bias against us when in teh prem because of the 'armchair figures' rweason we tended only to get our minimum home games live and minimal away games. Simple reason is advertising revenue based on viewing figures. I suggest that we are being shown more than most simply because we are unpredictable at the moment, playing attacking football but not necessarily getting the results - it makes for a more entertaining spectacle - afterall why would sky want to show sides that have a reputaion deserved or otherwise that simply hoof and put 11 behind the ball when defending?

FFS I dont believe this thread - MOaning when we loose and being positive when we win - in some cases balanced in between is what Being a supporter is all about FFS. The ups downs frustrations whinge ectasy elation moan conundrum thing.... without it football would be dull dull dull.... what is frankly crap is is the fact that as supporters of the SAME side we whinge too often about each other - feck, my mood swings are my own and if I want to whinge and moan because of defeat and be in naive happyclappy heaven the next , who is to tell me or other fans otherwise - get with the program and moan and whinge when we loose and be happyclappy when we win - trust me it makes for more interesting times! ;-)

Think the biggest part of the problem with these boards is how seriously some folk take everything.... including the football. We all know scooby is a wind up, laughing himself silly at the way some on here get so strung out by him, and Sundance? Can those so critical really say their opinion of him is solely down to the way he presents his views rather than the views themselves? There does seem to be a higher level of acceptance of abuse and slagging when aimed at the 'luvvies' than vice versa - a virtual bullying from the virtual mob at times or so it seems. We all need to lighten up and have a laugh yet it seems strange that we have a go at some for getting wound up by insults and 'hitting back' yet are happy to let some juveniles use quite frankly pathetic or sick avatars? I think most appreciate that this is an open forum, open to all siants fans and that our fanvase reflects all types, but perhaps we should be concentrating more on those things that are just wrong and less on slagging each others opinion? Chap in the Chapel's views often differ with mine, but he writes a decent line, has got off his arse to do something for fans and has always been open and honest about his opinion so he should be applauded whatever you think of his views.

I think though whatever the rights and wrongs of the current strategy, we should see it through... further wholescale changes do little for any form of consistency. What we need to be careful of is simple - A change of ownership and nothing more is currently of no advantage to SFC - only to those who despise the current regime. Its also unlikely to happen as Wilde has stated he is unlikely or will not sell simply to change ownership, but only where there is demonstratable cash for long term security - which is fair enough in MHO

Whatever we think of Scoobies 'wind up 'sycophantic ramblings' or Sundance Beast's attempts to defend what is in so many eyes indefensible, are they not merely reflecting the opposite of the staunchly held 'blame' culture that many display which it can not be argued continues to provide a nice negative cloud over anything the club does or tries - in many cases simply because of WHO is trying it with the Question of WHY and the ALTERNATIVEs not really being given the appropriate adult debate? Alternative views should be encouraged and applauded if made with intelligent and rational opinion surely? Too often on here the FACTS are lost amongst the almost schardenfreude like glee that we feck up - as its another stick with which to beat the Lowemonster/meister* (* delete as appropriate to your stauchly held opinion). I like many will agree that the decisions taken by those at the top, and the effect it has on the field are THEIR responsibilty and they must take that responsibilty, good or bad. There are times such as now where the facts suggest that teh wrong decsions have been made, afterall we not setting the league alight with our kids playing total football.... but there are certainly merits to the the idea and the necessity of it financially is difficult to argue against, but how does this lead to the conclusions that some on here believe is beyond me. I seriously do not believe there is anyone at the club who wants failure - yet some of the opinions often expressed suggests that some do actually believe this - I do believe that for whatever reasons and motivations, success is wanted by all. As was the case under Crouch. Whether they have the knowledge, experience and approach necessary to achieve that is what is open to debate and rightly so - but if we are really honest with ourselves it all really comes down to money.

I guess we want it both ways - the cheap pricing and continental 'cost model' (which is why players agents encourage their players to the play in the UK - the cash cow the game has become whilst they laugh all the way to the bank in Geneva at the fools we are - also creating opportunities for local players to grow up and learn the game in their local leagues and we wonder why, despite the French league being poor, they won a world cup only 8 year ago,and some of the former Eastern European teams are comming on strong) but with the so called best league in the World in which players are payed beyond the means of 90% clubs... amodel which sees us as well as many others have to make that choice betwen running a financial tightrope to try and get promoted and keep fans off their backs risking going bust, or take a prudent view, stay lower table, but solvent but have teh fans screeming ' no ambition' I think its time many of us accepted the reality that without the pot of gold of some wealthy fool happy to fund the losses, clubs are shafted if they take too many risks. Yes some wiley manager might be able to get a club out of the CCC on a shoestring - usually filling a squad with big lads at the back and front and muscling out the 'footballing' sides, but they get found out very quickly when promoted - unless there is substantial investment... or even with it get relegated but now with a greater wage burden... Alps makes a good point about the cost of taking a family to a game, but that is now an inevitable effect of the the premier league taking the greenback from Sky - yes it has seen a massive investmnet in teh ifrastructure, better stadiums, better facilities for supporters etc, but the knockon effect of inflated wages has fillterd down the leagues meaning that to mount a promotion challenge, the calibre of players required is beyond the means of any club whose losses are not covered by a rich benefactor. In addition, The only challenge to the filling of grounds in the prem is not necessarily the cost as there are still plenty of corporates for whom football is a darn sight cheaper than Wimbledon or Royal Ascot, but whether its considered entertaining as teh gaps grow bigger between the elite and the also rans. Where will the game be in 10 years time? I think its safe to assume that the WSL 'World Soccer League' - will suck in the global TV rights with Manchester Devils, Barcelona Catalans or the Dubai hubcapsteelers selling their own rights with FIFA, UEFA and the FA capitulating as normal on the understaning that these clubs will release players (under 23 and having made less than 2 first team appearances, all fees wages and medical costs and insurance paid) for the FIFA weekend World trophy over a summer weekend for the glory of the game - the real world champions being naturally teh inners of the WSL.... and the domestic game being but a feeder/ US collegiate style annual 'draft' for the WSL - clubs getting a standard 50000 Euro per player drafted.... Sounds fanciful? I have seen it in my Crystal Ball....

Seems more appropriate to post this here...... The old dessertion thread... I think we have a problem, on which we should maybe finally all agree to differ, afterall we are all fans of the same club? The problem is simply that for some, going to the game is everything regardless of results, and no matter how we try and twist it, the clubs biggest source of revenue - much needed in this hour is gate receipts, so its obvious that when gates dwindle the club suffers. BUt we also need to have a reality check and get off our own high horse for a moment - football is an expensive entertainment and times are harder now for many - many folk simply cant afford teh ST this year, and many members and casual walk ups who maybe went to 10 games last year can only afford 3-5 games a season now... its not exactly cheap. BUt we are also confusing the argument - even when relatively successful in the 2003 season, we still ahd to give tickets away for games such as Bolton and there where probably only 26k-28k for the 5-6 unfashionable games we had. Relegation lost us about 2000 coporates + about 3000 prem only casual fans - no disrespect to them, as they were simply supporters of football who enjoyed watching quality sides - no skin of my nose... that left the 20,000 or so we had the last couple of seasons.... since then the credit crunch has hit home, and some have got fed up with the lack of success. Others are fed up with the regime and stay away as protest - TBH, both are valid really as it is a free country and we choose how to spend our money. What complicates this is that some of the stay away's would consider if asked themselves 'hardcore' but dont go because of the regime, when the truth might be a simpler more valid reason, such as being skint or genuinely no longer considering it value for money considering teh performances v the cost... but of course it sounds much better to blame the absence on the prats in the boardroom. I also think maybe its easier to understand a casual fan who is skint or thinks the football we are playing is not worth it than the 'hardcore' who loves the club so much they stay away out of protest, when there is the simple issue that staying away is simply damaging the club more financially - both short term and potentially long term. I think thats why this debate continues ad infinitum, because those who still go simply dont see the relevene of the clowns in the baordromm on match days when its all about the traditional values of passion and support for those 90 mins - and helping the cash strapped club they love. I think part of this stems for the urban myths now associated with the club - the years of repeat ad infinitum of 'Lowe's back pocket overflowing with our hardearned' - because even on a good salary + pension, the amounts were simply irrelevent to the success of the club - yet in terms of the fans income seemed beyong our comprehension. It this dicotomy between what we consider 'greed' of the board v our own average income that reinforces this myth... and so we 'aint putting another penny in Lowe's pocket' strikes accord with many - the irony being that Lowe will get paid what he gets paid regardless of whether fans stay away or not until the club goes bust - at which point he may well pick the whole lot up alot cheaper! Lets also be honest about the numbers - I would suggest that the actual number of ST holders and regular attendess who are no longer going purely as protest against Lowe and Wilde is actually very small in terms of club revenue - BUT there are lot more staying away because of the poor results - nowt wrong with that - and they should be welcomed back when/if the results pick up - the only sadness in all this is that with more cash we mioght be able to afford the central defender we so desperately need...

The old dessertion thread... I think we have a problem, on which we should maybe finally all agree to differ, afterall we are all fans of the same club? The problem is simply that for some, going to the game is everything regardless of results, and no matter how we try and twist it, the clubs biggest source of revenue - much needed in this hour is gate receipts, so its obvious that when gates dwindle the club suffers. BUt we also need to have a reality check and get off our own high horse for a moment - football is an expensive entertainment and times are harder now for many - many folk simply cant afford teh ST this year, and many members and casual walk ups who maybe went to 10 games last year can only afford 3-5 games a season now... its not exactly cheap. BUt we are also confusing the argument - even when relatively successful in the 2003 season, we still ahd to give tickets away for games such as Bolton and there where probably only 26k-28k for the 5-6 unfashionable games we had. Relegation lost us about 2000 coporates + about 3000 prem only casual fans - no disrespect to them, as they were simply supporters of football who enjoyed watching quality sides - no skin of my nose... that left the 20,000 or so we had the last couple of seasons.... since then the credit crunch has hit home, and some have got fed up with the lack of success. Others are fed up with the regime and stay away as protest - TBH, both are valid really as it is a free country and we choose how to spend our money. What complicates this is that some of the stay away's would consider if asked themselves 'hardcore' but dont go because of the regime, when the truth might be a simpler more valid reason, such as being skint or genuinely no longer considering it value for money considering teh performances v the cost... but of course it sounds much better to blame the absence on the prats in the boardroom. I also think maybe its easier to understand a casual fan who is skint or thinks the football we are playing is not worth it than the 'hardcore' who loves the club so much they stay away out of protest, when there is the simple issue that staying away is simply damaging the club more financially - both short term and potentially long term. I think thats why this debate continues ad infinitum, because those who still go simply dont see the relevene of the clowns in the baordromm on match days when its all about the traditional values of passion and support for those 90 mins - and helping the cash strapped club they love. I think part of this stems for the urban myths now associated with the club - the years of repeat ad infinitum of 'Lowe's back pocket overflowing with our hardearned' - because even on a good salary + pension, the amounts were simply irrelevent to the success of the club - yet in terms of the fans income seemed beyong our comprehension. It this dicotomy between what we consider 'greed' of the board v our own average income that reinforces this myth... and so we 'aint putting another penny in Lowe's pocket' strikes accord with many - the irony being that Lowe will get paid what he gets paid regardless of whether fans stay away or not until the club goes bust - at which point he may well pick the whole lot up alot cheaper! Lets also be honest about the numbers - I would suggest that the actual number of ST holders and regular attendess who are no longer going purely as protest against Lowe and Wilde is actually very small in terms of club revenue - BUT there are lot more staying away because of the poor results - nowt wrong with that - and they should be welcomed back when/if the results pick up - the only sadness in all this is that with more cash we mioght be able to afford the central defender we so desperately need...

NOt quite sure why we are even 'excited' about being taken over by anyone with no real money apart from those wo would be happy just to get rid of lowe - would we see any change in fortunes on the pitch? there is ssimply no cash to change the situation and I cant see any of the local tyre kickers with any real cash to make a difference...