Saint Richard of Woolston

I think he consistently lacks pace, consistently avoids tackles and consistently misplaces passes. OK, Ok, a bit harsh. Not a lot, though. Andrew has not improved as much as I thought he would have over the last 2 years. He is little better now than when he first arrived on the scene. Maybe Wotte will be the man that makes him focus and work on his game. Let's hope so - the potential, albeit unrealised, is still there.

By far the best post I have ever read on this site. I concur completely.

Is that an admission, Steve? :smt048

Further to above, I should point out that I know Campbell was not on the end of just 'racial' abuse. However, singling people out for other things (e.g. sexual orienation, disability etc) is judged under the same criteria. Lord, I wish I hadn't started this. Just beware the 'fun police' may take a dim view of this sort of banter.

I had a few years of sitting on Football Association Discip Panels not so long ago. Fortunately I have my life back now and have got out of that. The real answer to the question, as judged by the FA, is that to call somebody a 'welsh', 'scottish' or 'irish' so and so is indeed racist. To call somebody a 'skate', 'scouse', 'geordie' etc etc etc so and so is NOT racist. There accompanied a long and boring explanation from the FA LAwyers as to why this was and I will not attempt to recount it here as some of you will die with boredom. But that is how the FA will judge it. Why should we worry about the FA, I hear you say? Well, it was the same guidelines the police had and given the Old Bill's willingness to dive in and prosecute in the wake of Sol Campbell's treatment at Notarfkrap a while back, I would caution you all that anybody indulging in this sort of banter may feel the long arm of OB. I am not saying that it is right that OB could grab you for this. Just warning that it could happen under the terms of reference for Football Policing as agreed with the FA.

LOL, Physician, heal thyself. :roll: Now, shall I be shamed into silence by your stinging rebuke or shall I carry on as normal? Let me think. :roll: : Honestly, Steve, all this masquerading as the 'voice of reason and moderation' may fool a few of the youngsters on here but it really does not cut any ice with anybody with the most basic thought process. :roll: You consistently monopolise any thread where you can demonstrate your ability to add, subtract, multiply and divide; any thread where you can give Pearson a good 'rub' (he must have been nice to you and you now think he is your friend); and any thread where you can spin it into 'and it is all Lowe's fault'. Other than that, I guess you are quite spontaneous. You must be a bundle of laughs to go out with. We really must have that beer one day as I am damn sure you cannot be as I imagine you. :roll: However, I shall give you the last word here as I know you will not be able to resist it. And I will do so for the very good reason that I shall not be revisiting this thread as it seems to have reached its natural death without any facts actually tumbling out. Which does not surprise me. :roll: Anyhow, I wish you well and wish for three points on Saturday. How about you? :roll: :roll: ps Did I do enough :roll: s :roll:

It is quite clear the anti-Lowe Brigade are now acting together and starting the 'drip, drip, drip' of stories, true and 'imaginary'. Duncan's views on Lowe are well-known and we have seen him drop in a couple of historic gems of late. Corbett....and now Wiseman. Doubtless Up Pahars will be playing some records backwards somewhere on this board and telling us that it means Lowe is the devil incarnate. Pass the salt, please. I don't really care if anybody is pro-Lowe or anti-Lowe but please make your own minds up and don't fall for this load of old tosh. Somebody pass the salt, please.

It is quite clear the anti-Lowe Brigade are now acting together and starting the 'drip, drip, drip' of stories, true and 'imaginary'. Duncan's views on Lowe are well-known and we have seen him drop in a couple of historic gems of late. Corbett....and now Wiseman. Doubtless Up Pahars will be playing some records backwards somewhere on this board and telling us that it means Lowe is the devil incarnate. Pass the salt, please. I don't really care if anybody is pro-Lowe or anti-Lowe but please make your own minds up and don't fall for this load of old tosh. Somebody pass the salt, please.

Beatts is still a Saint at heart - trust me. Wasn't it good NOT to see him v Sheff United, last game of last year??!!!

Beatts is still a Saint at heart - trust me. Wasn't it good NOT to see him v Sheff United, last game of last year??!!!

I can imagine Mary Corbett being intellectually & morally intimidated by Lowe - after all, she is just free-riding off of her father's shares & lifetime's work for the club whilst Lowe, love him or loathe him, has put some time in at the coal face and made some real decisions (for right or wrong), rather than abdicate his responsibility when a Director unlike, er, Mary Corbett for example. But PHYSICALLY intimidated? And in public?? I don't believe it for one second. I believe she said it but do not believe it is true. Further rantings from a bitter, twisted and incompetent person in my opinion. And these comments should be treated as such.

I can imagine Mary Corbett being intellectually & morally intimidated by Lowe - after all, she is just free-riding off of her father's shares & lifetime's work for the club whilst Lowe, love him or loathe him, has put some time in at the coal face and made some real decisions (for right or wrong), rather than abdicate his responsibility when a Director unlike, er, Mary Corbett for example. But PHYSICALLY intimidated? And in public?? I don't believe it for one second. I believe she said it but do not believe it is true. Further rantings from a bitter, twisted and incompetent person in my opinion. And these comments should be treated as such.

Shut up, Leon.

Having Crouch & McMoneyme at the helm what have brought no greater assurance of success in the boardroom, trust me. I think the vast majority would have liked to see Pearson stay on but we are where we are and harping back to a load of hypothetical what ifs serves no real purpose imho.

SCC is running a massive budget deficit after years of chronic mismanagement. Anybody suggesting that they stump up a row of beans towards the Club is discussing the biggest non-starter since a dead horse lined up for the Grand National.

Whilst it 'may' be inevitable if we go down, I don't think it is inevitable (i) that we do go down and (ii) admin is inevitable if we do not. And it is anything but easy to make Lowe & Wilde's position untenable. In fact,I would say bloody next to impossible. To accelerate us into Admin when the scenario is far from inevitable is sheer and utter folly.

LOL LOL LOL. Well, that's it then. Unlike the Echo to get anything wrong. Anyhow, back to your question. Admin would be an unmitigated disaster for this club, putting all of the disasters of the last 5 years or so well into the shade to the degree that you would think that none of them had ever happened. And if you really think it would mean the end of Lowe, then you are seriously misinformed. Indeed, it is likely that he would emerge from Admin with even a stronger grip on the club. With all due respect to everybody on here, the only sensible way forward is to get right behind the team now and wait (and I am afraid that 'waiting' is the only real option as much as you may hate it) until a credible alternative to Lowe & Co comes forward. It is often darkest before the dawn and running around and breaking windows will not make it any lighter any quicker.

The entire point of this, surely, is that Lowe has to be replaced by somebody better than him. Unlike 2006 when he clearly was not. And nor do I believe Crouch, backed by his friends from the Sports & Social Committee of the local Social Club, will deliver anything better than noise, hot air and bluster. Real fan (whatever that means) or not, Lowe's replacement needs do be able to deliver a little more than the kind of rhetoric old Leon spouts, bless him. As to whether I like Lowe, I think that is a non-issue. FWIW on the occasions I have met him, he has always been very polite and charming. That does not make him the right man, however. The truth is I would have Beelzebub as Chairman if he could get the club moving in the right direction and (maybe a harder task altogether) rid the club of the 'attention seeking' element amongst its 'supporters' that thinks it has all the answers (whilst barely understanding the questions) and unite the fans once again into supporting the team.

Rather distressingly, maybe for both of us, I find myself in complete agreement with you on at least the quoted parts of your statement. I would actually instal him as FAVOURITE to take the Club off the Administrator, should one be appointed. Still, what would I know.

I blame Rupert Lowe.

Mary Corbett's equal in 'How to run a Football Club'.

Mary will be discussing Nuclear Medicine, Astro Physics and Applied Mathematics, all of which she knows as much about as she does running a football Club.

Not for the first time, our perceptions of reality appear to be entirely different. I would say that the Echo has been entirely consistent in its otherwise ****poor reporting of matters Saints. From the moment Wilde first purchased his shares, the Echo has been entirely pro Wilde and surely you will recall the myriad of articles it wrote slanted as 'anti-Lowe' and how it span everything it wrote to be anti-Lowe (something you should recognise) and pro-Wilde (again, I do recall a few posts from you promoting Wilde). The fact that the Echo remains pro-Wilde may well be a surprise, given its ability to change horses with the blink of an eye. But the fact that it has not changed horses as quick as you or at a blink of your eye hardly makes it cringeable. Just my two pennies. Is there a game tonight?

Oooh, time for me to leave for the day - a post that makes perfect sense and one I agree with 100%. I'll shake your hand on that one Jason, for sure. As to 'how we get there', it should be noted that I am always right and have the sat nav whilst Um Pahars has an old map, is holding upside down and is continually wrong. And I will defend his right to continue being so to the last drop of beer in my glass.

I took you at face value there, only to see you broke this apparent offer of silence two posts later. And the fact that they were perfectly accurate matters not one jot. Good man! No bias here, then.