Torrent Of Abuse

I see what you mean, but the very point you're making should tell you why you're getting such a negative reaction. It is indeed as annoying when someone is smug after a 2 match winning streak as it is when someone is smug after a 2 match losing streak. It hardly needed its own thread to work that one out. You don't win any prizes for out w**kering a w**ker, I'm afraid. The trouble with the moral high ground is it only serves a purpose when you're actually on it. If you get down off it simply to thumb your nose at someone, then you automatically lose the argument.

What utter nonsense. The club have made not talking to the fans and not listening to the fans into an art form these last few years. Surely you'd have to get such basics right before you explore such a complicated idea as a fan's parliament? It's like suggesting you build a library for someone who has yet to learn to read and who, in fact, has only shown an interest in burning books, not reading them. Perhaps, in the spirit of building a bedrock of trust on which they can build a fan's parliament, the club can actually spend the rest of this season, and the next, re-learning how to talk to their fanbase and listen to their fanbase. Once they show that they can manage that, I'm sure we will all be more open to this kind of idea. Right now it just looks like another of Michael Wilde's ploys to short-cut his way into our good books. He seems to find it far easier to talk the talk than walk the walk, as anyone still waiting for him to stump up 2 million for the coffers knows only too well.

It failed because a fan group will never please enough of the people for enough of the time. There are those who think that a fans group should not speak on their behalf because the very existence of a fans group which espouses an opinion reduces the importance of an individual and removes their right to speak their case individually. The same people are highly suspicious of anyone who puts themselves forward as any kind of spokesperson for the group - often to the point of openly questioning their motives and suggesting that they are involved only to serve themselves - whether with or without evidence to that effect. Ironically, I think the amount of flak which a spokesperson would get means that you probably discourage a number of quieter, less media-focussed people anyway. There are also others who think that if they are going to bother offering their support to a fans group then that group had better bl**dy work hard on their behalf. There should be regular news updates and continual votes to make sure everyone's views are taken into account. Lord help anyone issuing a statement without polling the members and publishing the results. Every time. For everthing. Everything. I think any fans group will die if it tries to please everyone. SISA lasted so long because we all know at most six people were responsible for any decisions and that those decisions were made on the basis of a manifesto drawn up in someone's bedroom the night before and released to the press the next day. As a member of SISA you didn't know what you were signed up to until the committee told you. They may not have represented your views but it worked. Maybe if the Trust could decide whether to put everything to the vote or bully you into toeing the line, it would work too.

I wasn't talking about your formal complaints so much as your habit of continually whingeing that you are being unfairly victimised on this forum, and that the mods should intervene on your behalf. As you seem ready to complain about your treatment at the hands of other posters at the drop of a hat, I'd have thought you could have treated Dibden's original post with more respect. Maybe this forum will pick up once the club has cut out the rot at its heart and started again. I can only hope that is true: All the previous, less extreme cures just seem to leave us getting sicker :-(

And I seem to recall that you squeal for the attention of the mods when anyone writes anything even slightly confrontational on your threads and yet here you are, standing toe to toe with Dibden Purlieu Saint. Congratulations. Have a banana. FWIW, I agree with the posters who say that this forum is just a reflection of how s**t we all feel now. When there was infighting on the board, there was infighting on here too. It's only natural that the forum seems to carry the same stench of defeat the club has too. Right now, I see administration and rebirth as the only way to get back to being a normal club, owned by someone who might just care about it - which is a despicable thing to contemplate, as it probably means relegation and a few years in the doldrums of league 1 (or lower) before we see anything improve. Still, better to take the harsh cure than suffer the lingering disease :-(

Excellent posts from PFC123... I think we all know that the road back to being a normal club will be a long and painful one. And to think many of us thought Michael Wilde's first arrival at Saints marked the end of the beginning (instead of the beginning of the end). As for the idea of protesting during the game, I'd be against anything which risks affecting the team's performances. It's bad enough we have a board who are keen on sabotaging the club without us doing our bit too. I don't care if the board do 99% of the damage to our club, I will not do the extra 1%, so personally I'd keep the protesting to before/after the game. I think there is plenty of time both before and after the game to get the message across to the board. I imagine the sight of a seething mass of angry fans chanting outside the front of SMS after the game every game would do the trick. As the board members will need to get past the protesters to get out of SMS, I imagine it would give a much better way of getting the message across to the right people. As for the idea we're down with 14 games to go, that's pitiful. It was bad enough when many posters relegated us with 2 games to go last season without this sort of nonsense. As others have said, that attitude would have seen us relegated years ago - and is an insult to those who fought so hard against the odds to keep us up (both fans and players).

It's like a quiet day on the Echo newsdesk... LOCAL VICAR GIVES THUMBS UP TO NEW POPE "I approve", says inconsequential local cleric. That said though, if a shared nationality is all it takes to pass on your backing to the appointment of a fellow countryman, then can I just say that I wholeheartedly support Lucy Pinder in whatever job she's doing right now and I'd gladly back her to the hilt. Anytime. Anywhere. Repeatedly... :-)

Well as our club seems to be run by comedians for the last few years, perhaps we could convince more Saints figures to reproduce famous comedy sketches? My own favourite (*showing age*) would be to get George Burley to play Eric Morecambe in the sketch that Morecambe and Wise did with Andre Previn: Morecambe/Burley: "I'm playing all the right players, just not necessarily in the right places"

Always a bad thing when it comes down to threats like that. Of course, the strange irony is that Michael Wilde once sent me a letter threatening to destroy my football club. Of course, in those days we called it a manifesto, but the effect was pretty much the same. Didn't the guy who ran Saintsforever get threats and glued locks when things turned nasty online? Might surely be the same person/people? Surely if this was an episode of CSI, the police would be able to find the culprit by finding who bought bottles of superglue around the time of both crimes. This would, of course, narrow things down to one possible suspect and he'd admit to doing it straight away, thereby tieing up the case within an hour. Personally, I'd like it to be more like an episode of Columbo, where we'd see who did it and then wait for Columbo to catch up to him/her. You could safely turn over or pop out to make a cup of tea in the middle of Columbo without missing anything vital.

ITN - In That Number HTH - Hope That Helps It's probably best to hold off on all that talk about provocative, divisory posters who have lost the plot for the moment, Sundance. For your part, you appear to have marched into no mans land with no idea where you're going, no exit strategy and a gun which fires little bits of potato.

If we didn't move, we would still have gone down as we were dealing year after year with the most meagre budgets in the division while we were at the Dell. We got relegated through one season where poor player signings, poor performances and poor managerial appointments collided. Those disasters had nothing to do with St. Mary's and could have easily happened at the Dell. Life wouldn't be any easier here with a small stadium, even taking into account our stadium debt. If anything, the air of gloom would have have been exacerbated by seeing us in a stadium which better fits our new status as Championship strugglers. Where we went wrong was in repeatedly choosing to risk money on a couple of moderately talented players instead of buying one talented player. Where we went wrong was in constantly changing direction at the top so we're withholding the cash one year and then blowing it all on anyone with a pulse the next. Don't lay the blame at St. Mary's door. It belongs in the board room and there alone.

If both managers are having such a bad time of it then you'd not write off the possibility of both of them losing their jobs - regardless of which way the result went.

Hopefully (as we're so strapped for cash) someone at the club will be keeping their eyes peeled for any large bets being placed at Betfair so at least we can all make some money this time: 1. Notice new tea lady appointed at White Hart Lane. 2. Wait for rumours of Redknapp's disappointment at replacement of favoured ex-tea lady and difficulty working with new tea lady who doesn't know he takes two sugars. 3. Observe large bet being placed on Redknapp leaving Spurs. 4. Display shock when Redknapp resigns and returns to 'spiritual home'. 5. Collect large winnings which can then be used to pay off our debts. Simple.

Which is probably why we are where we are. I'm not saying he's a bad player (quite the opposite) but there's definitely something Pruttonesque about signing a young talented player for the Premiership and pinning your hopes on him. I think towards the end we made one too many of that sort of hopeful long shot signing. Some things never change...

Agreed. But how can we get any sort of stability when we have one part of the boardroom sniping at another via the AGM report? Surely it's inevitable that Crouch would have gone on the defensive in the media. If he hadn't replied, the usual suspects on here would have assumed his silence meant that he accepted guilt. Of course, Mr Wilde is no stranger to this sort of blame-throwing. I remember he and his cohorts (including Crouch) did so in their first set of financial results. Strangely Michael always seems to be on the side doing the criticising rather than the side taking responsibility. I just hope that this is not the first set of shots in another of those leaks and counter leaks we had in years gone by. It's the last thing this weakened club needs. As for the criticism of the fans in the AGM report - well I had hoped Rupert had changed but it seems he's just the same. He's not really much of a businessman really: When it suits him he calls us "customers" and yet when those customers don't buy his product, he doesn't blame the company (or its leadership) but blames the customers. I don't think a businessman gets that far without listening to his/her customers...

Meh... I'd guess many people used to come to the old Dell to see ManU play rather than simply see us play when we were in the PL so I don't see there's that much to complain about. Sure it might be a bit frustrating to know that some of those attending will be those who who claimed they would never darken the doors of SMS while RL was in charge but really, so what? We didn't complain when people came back for the last league game of last season: It was an overwhelmingly good thing. The most important thing will be if the club makes enough money to stay out of administration - the same story as last week and the week before and the week before that. The only sad thing about the attendance will likely be comparing it to the attendance in the league game which follows it. If we don't get something out of the cup game then we'll be back to an empty stadium soon enough.

How about we convince them to groundshare, get them to bulldoze Fratton Park and then tell them we're not interested any more. It would make me laugh anyway.

Actually, Alpine, you're slagged off because (to use a movie-analogy) you're the guy in the disaster film who shrieks out "Oh God, Oh God, we're all going to die! DIIIIIEEEE I tell you!" until someone grabs him, slaps him and shakes the hysteria out of him. No-one doubts the depth of the pile of p00 we're in, but many on here doubt the wisdom or helpfulness of complaining about the smell every 30 seconds. As for the match review, it would be a nice read if we were mid-table but, as many others have pointed out, we're actually up sh1t street at the mo. An experienced defence would go a long way to making this team seem half decent. As it is, we seem intent on doing things the hardest way possible. I think a change of style like this would probably kill the team completely. It's one thing bringing in a new manager but to get kids who have been brought up passing the ball and introduce them to the direct style would just ruin everything. If we wanted the direct approach, we should have committed to it while we still had some wily old pros at the club who might have taken to the direct game.

When I think of Beevers, I always picture an energetic young man playing in the hole.

Depends how much money those taking over had. If we were given 20 million up front, I'd actually want to bring in three young players who would attract premier league attention but who might be tempted by first team football AND the chance to earn promotion. Think Bale and Walcott when they just started to catch the eye, before the big guns stepped in and snapped them up. I think a CCC club would be able to turn their heads if players and clubs realised we could offer a decent wedge. I know a lot of people on here would be interested to know what this young side would have looked like if everything had happened 2 years earlier only with Bale, Walcott and Jones in the line-up. Might have been quite an interesting prospect. I'd certainly be wary of bringing in more than one older journeymen types - not because I think they all turn out bad (because that's not the case) but because it would signal yet another occasion when the club changed horses mid-stream, which is what has screwed us over so much over the last few seasons. Add 3 young exciting players. Add 1 old, talented player straight out of the Prem for a year on a good wage. Keep Jan on for a while longer. Stir for 8 months and serve.

It depends on whether Jan feels that Lallana's replacement was one of those most responsible for the improved 2nd half performance or not. If someone came in and did well, I reckon they deserve the chance to start this match. If Jan feels that the credit belongs elsewhere then he might just consider slotting Lallana in alongside some of the guys who did make an impact. I know the argument about "playing your best team" but this team is young and there is not so much difference in quality across the team so I'd think it becomes more important to show the lads that things have changed since the days of George Burley and good performances are rewarded with chances in the first team. It also helps focus the mind for those players who (despite being young) think that a small, young squad means they are automatically more likely to get a game than at a bigger club so they don't need to try so hard.

With the second half under way, Rupert gave Jan a little motivation by pretending to set fire to his contract.

While we're at it, you could also consider that 338,226 troops were rescued from Dunkirk but 1,452,000 landed back in Normandy 4 years later. If it were anything like Saints, we'd only have been able to muster 150,000 because the other 180,000 had decided to take up gardening and macramé instead :smt096

Perhaps it's you who needs to post reminders on your monitor. As it's a message board, I'm allowed to suggest people are posting c**p and they're allowed to do the same to me. What surely isn't in the spirit of a message board is suggesting others have to go find a different thread as because this one doesn't suit a particular poster's point of view. Jesus, Alpine, you're a lazy poster. Who the hell said I thought of Lowe as some kind of messiah? Perhaps instead of resorting to your usual fall-back position of labelling people who disagree with you as 'lowe-luvvies' and 'happy-clappy super fans' you could actually consider that people might disagree with you and dislike Rupert Lowe. I wanted Rupert Lowe out and voted against him in the EGM. I despaired when he came back, sacking yet another manager in the process. That doesn't mean I hold him solely responsible the s**t we're in now and it doesn't mean I think that getting rid of him now is a good solution. I don't think that a club which is (allegedly) quibbling over playing players due to their performance bonuses can afford to pay for the termination of two more staff contracts and appoint anyone other than Skippy and possibly Digby the Biggest Dog in the World. As last year with your crusade to rid the club of George Burley - which led to the spectacularly successful appointment of the Chuckle Brothers, you seem oblivious to the fact that things can in fact get much worse and (given that we haven't got the hint of a suggestion of a rumour of two fivers to rub together) they probably will if we spend more money we don't have on changing the non-playing staff. As for why you should come up with the ideas, how about because it's supposed to be your f**king club? Whether we're talking about Chairmen, executive directors, players, managers or academy boys the club is just another employer. We are the only ones who actually give a f**k. Once Ted Bates passed away and Matty hung up his boots, it came down to just us. I can't in all good conscience suggest we throw more money away on changing things off the field when I think it is almost guaranteed to bring administration and kill my club. It would be like choosing to cure a case of herpes by blowing your nuts off with a cannon. Although I disagree with him most of the time, I think Nick Illingsworth was right when he said that we should perhaps try to put aside what ill feelings we have to support the club. Without our money or support it will simply die. Not have a bad season or employ a bad manager or appoint a nasty chairman but just die. I don't see much righteousness in letting the club go out of business for a principal. I guess I can understand people giving up or finding other things to spend their money on but I find it desperately sad that we (who are the only people who actually care about the club) would think of letting it go when there is still life in it. The tale of the last three years for me has been a club ripping itself apart in front of me - particularly in the board room. It seems inevitable that a club which has fought so long against itself and changed its tack so many times (often at the worst time) would flounder. I guess that's what has frustrated me most about this thread - that after spending the last 3 years watching the board fighting amongst themselves, pointing accusatory fingers at each other while our club slowly dies on its a**e - we spend the time we have left doing exactly the same thing discussing where it all went wrong and who should be blamed.

I'm fully entitled to post what I like where I like thanks - and I'm pretty sure I don't need to ask you for your permission just as I'm sure I don't need to find a thread for like-minded people. But thanks for suggesting it. Don't kid yourself that there are ideas floating around here. There's only 101 threads about who is to blame. What is the point in discussing the past? What does it achieve? How do things change? If Rupert Lowe needs to go then the time and energy would be best spent protesting outside the ground for him to go. Instead we have same old threads popping up with variations on the subject of "I told you this was going to happen". It does nothing. I am certainly no fan of people like Richard Chorley but the one thing he had in his favour was that he got off his butt and did something. In his absence, we're left with people who are content to wail and gnash their teeth on here but who will do nothing. They'll rail against the "Lowe Luvvies" but won't actually vent their anger anywhere other than on the forum. It's no wonder that the old UI/SISA meetings only used to pull in 15 fans and a stray dog: Everyone's too busy posting about their feelings of angst. Instead of discussing how we got here, why are there no real discussions of how to get out of here? The answer could be because anything constructive requires actual effort whilst finger-pointing is easy and requires zero effort.