Johnny Bognor

Why not ban people, which would reduce ALL deaths by 100%?

I like the idea of a free personalised letter from an anonymous sender....it works for the man at the top.

To be fair Mr Flynn, this is like a STHU re-union. Perhaps we should rename this forum STHU Reunited?

No mine was the other letter, the one he didn't read out....I wonder why

Our Chairman is so popular, he even receives anonymous letters of support - how many other Chairman have received such letters?

It's very New Labour you know....(they want to lock people up for more than 28 days without being charged)......I just hope for Stevie G's sake they don't abuse anti-terror legislation and use it against him as they have done with others.

If nothing else changes, it explains why you keep going on about Daren Wheeler. Using your analogies, I would liken Lowe to John Presoctt - someone thows an egg at him and he responds disproportionately by throwing a metaphoric punch. The parallels are quite striking as both got to their positions based on priveledge rather than ability; both hang around whilst not being wanted; both talk the talk - yet don't deliver; and they both know how to play the media. Don't disagree with an excellent performance, but one swallow does not make a summer. What are your thoughts on the Forest and Plymouth games? Do these games also give you confidence? Lowe managed to balance the cost of Crouch's replacement (i.e. himself), so being the financial genius he is, I am sure he wouldn't have too much of a problem. Have you seen the league table lately? Did you not know that he is now banned from SMS as punishment? Not, "Come on You Ruperts" by any chance?

I think Jack will get up the beanstalk.....sorry, wrong pantomime

Complete contradiction in terms. A manager who doesn't get results (well 1 home win), reduces attendances, worsens finances ... will lead us into administration. ....whereas a manager that improves performances, will gain results, lift attendances, improve the finances.....which may save us from administration. So to be flawed on the manager front, whilst cost-cutting will not save us from administration.

The one thing they would take notice of is ST renewals. If these were withheld (as opposed to withdrawn) this would send a clear message. 2000 STHs witholding their renewal is placing a price of £1m for the removal of Lowe - in the state we're in, they would have to take notice. Having said this, getting 1000 people to comply would be difficult.

Indeed. If there are 24 people who are prepared to boycott and instead donate the £25 to the flyby - job done. ....and it did get coverage too.... http://www.sthu.co.uk/times.html http://www.sthu.co.uk/d_mail.html http://www.sthu.co.uk/d_express.html Not to mention numerous articles in the Echo, The Pink and a TV interview on Meridian. For a non telivised game, camera crews also were present to cover the event. In itself an air protest doesn't solve problems, but it is a way of galvanising support and getting valuable media exposure. The only problem with doing something for the United game, is that there is not enough time to lobby the media and make it as effective as possible.

Season Ticket Holders United HTH

No, but it gets valuable publicity. The last flyby was covered many times and in detail by the Echo. There was also coverage in The Times, Daily Mail, Daily Express and Merridian TV to name a few - and that game was not televised with the world watching. We were playing Cardiff in the CCC. The flyby in itself does not achieve anything, except for publicity. The impact of a flyby at the Man U game would be immense in terms of drawing media attention to a boycott, with the Sky cameras present and the FA Cup as the centre stage. Considering the publicity achieved last time round, the cost of £700 isn't that much. Lowe uses the media, so why shouldn't the fans?

See http://www.sthu.co.uk/fly_by.html £700 pays for a banner to be flown over the stadium. If 35 people are prepared to stump up £20 each, it can be arranged.

See http://www.sthu.co.uk/fly_by.html £700 pays for a banner to be flown over the stadium. If 35 people are prepared to stump up £20 each, it can be arranged.

"We've received an anonymous letter that says you are crap and should stand down"?

That bit does it for me, because I wasn't aware a game was going on during the AGM. It is almost as ridiculous as the website stating: "The Stadium Health & Safety Officer is to investigate alledged breaches of Health & Safety during the AGM yesterday. Recklessly waving an anonymous letter around, Mr Lowe could have inflicted paper cuts on those around him and could have taken someone's eye out". Not that I have had much respect for Lowe in the past, but the lettergate fiasco and this complete misuse of the website wipes out any modicum of respect anyone could have for the bloke. Surely even his staunchest supporters must be thinking "this guy has lost it"

It seems to me Chorley's actions were more symbolic, 30 peices of silver and all that. If it was his intent to maim or harm his victim, why was he not arrested and charged? Lowe is using this as a good bit of PR for himself, and unfortunately Chorley has paid into his hands (excuse the pun) by his actions - an outcome he would not have wanted. One thing Chorley does do, is that he puts his money where his mouth is (again, excuse the pun). Too many people talk about doing this, that and the other and it's all a load of guff. As for being banned from SMS, is that supposed to be some sort of punishment based on the home form this season?

Indeed. That anonymous PM you received earlier in support of your posting style is uncanny.

There is a myth that singing this during the game affects performance. The last time there were Lowe out protests in earnest (before, during and after each game), we won 7 of our last 8 games that season - our best run for many years. Our best run in many a year, so perhaps it isn't a myth after all. You could argue that with the focus on Lowe, it would take the pressure off the youngsters.

I thought breakeven is the point at which you do not make a loss and although this will be a number equal to cost, there will be a correlation to the average gate.

Therefore it is not breakeven then, is it?

The 19k that is often banded about refers to when we were in the prem, with the mega millions received in TV money. We have been averaging 22k-23k gates over the last three seasons and have still been losing a fortune - despite selling our best talent - therefore the breakeven is NOT 19k in the Championship. We are more reliant on the gate, as you say, but as for my maths, I based the average ticket price on £30 a head - the fact that it is more likely to be £18 per head if they were STHs, means that they have £12 a head to spend on beer and programmes. Allowing for this, we would still make a loss. If you are going to stand by your 19k breakeven gate, can you explain why in previous seasons we have been making horrendous losses?

I beg to differ, you seem to spend most of your working life defending them on here

I am not against the fact that she may have needed a chair and I am not against the installation of a much needed piece of equipment, it is the casual "chuck it" attitude when it could be 'recycled' and used elsewhere by someone else who may be carrying their other half up the stairs. What a waste.......... Type "stair lifts+reconditioned" into google - there is a whole industry around re-using them, but no just "chuck it away"