jonah

I guess we have a different idea of what constituted appalling behaviour then, I think those on the floor were the ones who were an embarassment to the club, We have a team/squad/finances that place us near the foot of the table. The only way to climb is to strike lucky with a better-than-average manager, get a better-than-average run of luck, or build upon what you have (which requires money and time). With WGS for example, we had a better-than-average manager and probably a better-than-average run of luck which led to a Cup Final and 8th place. Of course it's easy to say that now, but equally if that's all it was and Wotte is doing the opposite of the problems you quote, then wouldn't you have expected us to do better than 2 pts from 4 games? So that argument doesn't even hold water yet. I'm not sure that's the case any more, the reactions have started to border on hysterical for a large section of our fan base. And there's bugger all rationale to it - which is why Wilde waltzed in without opposition and escaped any criticism whatsoever from people who then try to jump on Lowe when he does the same things. Ditto things like the reverse takeover, you know full well the lies people spread about that when the central characters like Gordon, Hunt, Wiseman and McMenemy were then paraded as Lowe's replacements. The reason I mentioned them was because we had been talking about their behaviour at the AGM, plus the fact that LM has a minimal shareholding having sold out after the reverse takeover, yet seems to think he is a majority shareholder. It is not ignorant in any way - it might be different to your opinion, but I think I have enough knowledge and experience to form an opinion of my own thanks. When I say "supporters", I don't just mean punters at the turnstiles - I include people like LC, MC and LM in there. And you are unequivocably wrong to try to imply those same fans would have gotten involved at other times the club was run badly - if that was the case can you just imagine what the reaction would have been to the following "terrible acts of mismanagement" at the club: * Employing an ex-guardsman with no experience of playing top-flight football who took us from 8th (?) in the league at Xmas to relegation from the top flight. * 2 years in the wilderness of the 2nd division making no progress. * Failing to "push on to the next level" after winning the Cup in 76. * No investment after winning the cup in 76. * Holidaying on private estates rather than running the club * No investment after promotion in 78 - where was the ambition? * No attempt to keep hold of Alan Ball? * Failing to hold onto Keegan and cynically selling him after ST renewals (tut tut) * Failing to "push on to the next level" or get investment after finishing 2nd in the league * Failing to build a new stadium in 20 years of trying * Negligent attitude to club's finances and contract structures * Failing to back LM who left to go to Sunderland * Failing to back Nicholl / failing to sack him sooner * Appointing Branfoot * Failing to sack Branfoot sooner * Trying to sell MLT at least twice * Failing to back Alan Ball and letting him leave * The appalling treatment of Merrington * Allowing the club to close down the academy The list is never-ending. I'm not saying that's how I'd view those events above, but it's easy to do so and they are all to do with how the club has been run for decades - and I don't remember any fans turning any of those events into issues that had to be resolved at board level do you?

Yes I agree, hence you couldn't claim we'd been so unlucky we should be in the play-off spots, but a run of bad luck is enough to leave you a few points worse off. What about those recent pens, can't think of all of them but Plymouth and Man U were particularly bad. We need to start creating our own luck, but it's a fine between hitting woodwork and losing with dodgy pens, and scoring goals and escaping pens to win.

Duncan, I think Lowe's handling of the AGM was actually very professional and restrained given the general behaviour of various persons at the AGM - and I'm afraid I include you in this - which was downright childish and unacceptable. It was a company AGM, not a time for playground name-calling and mob-mentality behaviour. So Lowe read out a letter which backed him (and you can't honestly think he made it up, seriously), why shouldn't he? Why do you think he should only listen to a bunch of hypocrits dragging up old and irrelevant issues or using the AGM as some sort of personal soapbox? You like to ask me questions about Lowe but seem unwilling to answer those posed back to you - so I'll ask again, why did you feel the need to address the board at the AGM to ask Lowe about apologising for relegation 4 years ago? Why did you ask the same old question when you've asked it before and been given the answer before - I know full well you've seen the quotes from Lowe apologising for it, so why bring it up again? And what did that have to do with company matters for 2007/2008? [Do you have shares now? I thought you didn't?] As for the others who used the AGM as an excuse to soapbox, Crouch was an absolute embarassment with his ranting and raving, Lawrie makes Lowe's ego look miniscule and has a misty-eyed memory of certain facts (like the number of managers we went through with him on the board and dismantling the academy when Souness was there), Corbett shows why she shouldn't be within 200 miles of our boardroom and Chorley shows he's one sandwich short of a picnic. The only person who said anything sensible was Perry McMillan who wanted us to get more kids coming - a worthwhile idea, tempered only by the fact that as a parent I wouldn't want my kids anywhere near the bitter, resentful, unpleasant atmosphere you get at SMS. With regards to Lowe going on hoilday - where exactly have you been for the last 2 years when Wilde came in and could only spend 90 days in the UK in the entire year?! It's massive hypocrisy to moan about Lowe going on holiday - what about Trant, one of those who lied through his teeth about putting in money, not even bothering to attend the AGM after he was elected? What about Wilde not bothering to attend *this* AGM? What about John Corbett spending the summer on his Isle Of Mull estate? Lowe is working part-time for the club [unpaid? I think only AC is drawing a part-time wage right?] he was turfed out of 2 years ago in an attempt to stop us going to the wall and you are picking holes in the minutae of his actions rather than considering the mess he inherited last summer and what might actually be best for the club. It's all personal and therefore it's all unbalanced.

Already answered earlier in the thread - he should have doubled prices, served canapes instead of pies, Pimms instead of Fosters and generally tried to improve the class of punter at SMS. Oh no wait, that's the secret plan... my answer was in fact, appointing Wigley. And close second, his failure to handle PR correctly (with the caveat that he has largely handled it well since his return - mainly by saying next to nothing). I view it with the benefit of hindsight. I thought it was a good idea, and to be honest I think that he was pretty unlucky really - we could easily have won a few more games, we were quite unlucky with some of the dodgy pens and red cards and with the rub of the green and fewer injuries we could easily have been a few places higher. I remain unconvinced that our plight down near the bottom is due to poor team management - last season I thought we were a mid-table team, this season I thought we'd be hovering just above the drop. So to be 4 points adrift in Feb is only slightly worse than I expected. I would like the club's finances to be run on the same lines that RL has previously run them on, and I would *like* it if fans could concentrate on supporting the club and team instead of a part-time PLC chairman. Sadly I don't think the latter will ever happen due to a relentless element of our fan base - hence, I would probably be happy enough if the whole lot went, RL, AC, MW, LC, MC, LM et al. Apart from the "fan-friendly" PR they have nothing to offer in terms of actually running the club. But that's not going to happen either is it? So what are we left with? Fans won't be able to help themselves in continuing to attack their own club, but nobody else will come in. That leaves either administration getting rid of the lot of them (still unlikely, I can't imagine they will all just walk away), or relegation leading to the start up of an AFC Southampton type alternative. And I can't see either of those happening either to be honest. That just leaves my only remaining idea which is for all of those parties to agree to sell down their holdings below 3% - then none of them have notifiable interests and none of them appear to have any greater say in how the club is run than smaller shareholders. But again, there is no way LC would keep quiet, and since when did his selling nearly all his shares stop LM speaking to the Echo? And you'd still need to appoint CEOs which would become a political hot potato. Which brings us full circle to the fact that the fans are really causing their own problems - nothing is going to change, so why not just leave the boardroom to run the PLC and SFC and get on with supporting the team. We have created a situation that is almost impossible to back out of now - it's become a catch 22.

Sorry yes, I forgot that's what he'd been replying to in particular rather than a generalisation. Now that is probably far more accurate!

Yes, and the majority still do, including: * Lowe * Wilde * Crouch I think they tried to gloss over the last one at the SISA meeting last year when Crouch burst their balloon by saying the PLC status has absolutely nothing to do with our current issues. If you are implying thatyou also think the PLC status is a mistake, then there's another very good reason why you shouldn't be trying to get Crouch back in charge. It doesn't surprise me that you even manage to see the negatives in our best season for a couple of decades Duncan. What exactly will make you happy? You got Lowe out for 2 whole seasons and look where we ended up. Did you enjoy the Branfoot days or craning your neck at the Dell to watch Widdrington/Hurlock/C ockerill hoof the ball upfield? I've never heard you even mention those fun seasons of dross and depression (MLT excepted).

It would, I agree, which is why when we lose a goal in the 4th minute of injury time I don't feel the need to sack the chairman of the PLC. Likewise, if I got a bad strawberry bonbon from Woolies pick'n'mix I wouldn't stomp about in the AGM demanding the chairman resigned and asking why he hadn't apologised for my bad bonbon. I agree - but wasn't letting him sell Beattie, bring in Crouch, and bring in 5 expensive loan players letting him do what he does best? There were very few people who thought he wasn't supported in that window at the time. The cost constraints, the team fighting for survival with 20 minutes of the season remaining, and the prospect of administration were all due to the Wilde/Crouch time don't you agree? I just don't get what you or others expected to be different this time around? We only just survived last season by the skin of our teeth due to other team's failure - with worse finances and further cuts, what did you expect? Yes, he is my beloved. Most people outside of Southampton only hear the gossip and lies about Rupert Lowe - "he lined his pockets", "he was gifted his shares", "he's never put a penny into the club", whilst embelished with lies about Wilde and Crouch like "theypaid players wages". Of course people end up without a good word to say - but that's not based on the truth is it? No problem with accountability, the problem is it's all selective around here - people are trying to blame him for the reverse-takeover whilst absolving McMenemy and Co. He's criticised for dividends whilst Corbett & Co pocketed theirs without question. He's singled out for all appointments despite them being board decisions (usually!) or even Wilde's responsibility. And this thread is a classic - started by claiming appointing Gray was his biggest mistake. Lighten up, it was just a joke! I can't imagine how you all watch the football, you must sit there with tight balls of hatred welling up inside your stomach at every match just thinking about Rupert. If half the energy had gone into checking out Wilde & Co or supporting the team during games, we wouldn't be in the positions we're in now (in terms of cash or league position).

No, apparently analysing NP's 14 games in charge was not fair game as he inherited someone else's squad, then he hadn't had enough time to impose his own style, and then it wasn't representative enough to look at individual games even if half of them were "easy games". So I wouldn't want to rock the HMS Lunatic Fringe lifeboat by applying such analysis to Wigley's run, especially as he didn't have the benefit of bringing in 5 loan players like NP, however I can't believe you're trying to prove Redknapp didn't stand a chance of doing better than Wigley because "we'd already had all the easy games by November and there were only really hard ones left against teams we'd expect to beat at home but expect to lose to away" - classic, thanks ;-)

I thought Crouch started playing because Redknapp sold Beattie to help fund his loans? Damn that unfair scapegoating! :-) What nonsense, he brought in 5 players in the Jan window - that's half the team. We also overspent in that window, by £1.5m I believe. If it's so cut-and-dried that it was a no-hope situation then (a) why did Redknapp take the job in the first place, and (b) why the clamour to replace JP if there's no hope of anyone rescuing a club near the bottom? Twaddle and poppycok old boy. On the contrary, outside of this place most people are not obsessive about RL and just hold opinions based upon their view of facts rather than villifying someone they've never even met. That's why normal people see RL's faults like they can see Redknapp or Crouch's faults. But that's why you view Redknapp failing as being RL's fault, the appointment by the board also solely RL's fault... it's not very healthy really. If you take out the names it sounds ridiculous - "throwing away a 2 goal lead at home, twice, was the fault of the chairman of the PLC holding company of the football club". It just doesn't make sense.

Step forward one genius CEO Mr Jim "we're in a closed period" Hone who said: "I've asked the council to tell me how they spend that £1.6m."

Fer sure, but that's why the team was down the bottom! You're either down the bottom because you're simply not good enough (us this season), or because you have under-performing players (us when Redknapp arrived). All the other teams down there had similar problems otherwise they wouldn't have been there - all our players needed was some confidence and a couple of steady team-players to bond them... what did we get? Davenport, the worst defender I swear I have ever seen, Bernard who never spoke a word to anyone else in the team, crocked Redknapp Jr who kept falling on the ball when he did play, and Camara, hardly a team-player by anyone's stretch of the imagination. All we needed on top of that was for Redknapp to slate the players and someone like Quashie to really help split the camp. I don't like Redknapp but thought he'd get us out of it given he had the Jan transfer window. But there were some dreadful decisions, tactics and performances along the way (Boro, Villa, Everton) which stuffed us. And even the very last match we still had a chance but he changed the team on the morning of the game after training a different formation all week. I don't think bringing him in was bad at the time, but having seen him in action I didn't like keeping him on and I don't understand why we did that unless it was to avoid being seen to sack a manager. As for the £90k on Fuller - (a) what a bargain, shame the fans were too blinkered to see it and obsessed with the figure instead, and (b) it's been done to death but there was more to spend only Redknapp never got beyond Clinton Morrison who then turned us down.

Yes I would agree that was probably his worst mistake - but keeping our minds parked firmly in the Reality Parking Space with the handbrake on, that was corrected at minimal cost with plenty of time to correct the short period he was in charge (14 matches was it, with no changes to playing squad?). Hardly a disaster even if it was stupid - what idiot couldn't get our team to perform 1 point better in the second half of the season compared to someone as disastruous as Wigley eh? I mean *Wigley*, how could you do worse than him? Especially after over-spending in the January transfer window and having players like Crouch, Beattie and Phillips to call on?

The problem is Duncan, you're not "just wondering", you're starting off on Monday morning citing it as "Lowe's Biggest Mistake" in order to start yet another anti-Lowe thread on here. Why not wonder what would have happened if LM hadn't got us relegated in 1974? Or if the board had got us into a new stadium after 1976 and placed us in a *real* sustainable financial position to compete at the top level in the early 80s? So if Gray was on a lower salary surely that meant we had more money to spend on players, no? Why is that "financially friendly"? If we had paid more to get Moyes (relatively unproven Preston manager remember), and paid Gray's contract up when Moyes replaced him, we'd have had less cash for players - you'd have preferred that? Errrr, like WGS you mean? So, he didn't want grumpy old ambitious Moyes, but 3 months later he employed grumpy old ambitious WGS instead? Because after all, the problem you always cite with WGS was that RL didn't match his ambition... which obviously contradicts all the above. Personally I think the problem with Gray (and the lesson to be learned) was that the players wanted him - he was too familiar and friendly with them. That's a recipe for disaster - removing Gray quickly was correct and the right thing to do, not learning from that mistake with Wigley was something worth criticising.

Jim Hone 2006: "Our rateable value is £1.6m per annum. Portsmouth's is 25 per cent of that figure."

Ahh I see, anyone who agrees with the chairman doesn't have balls. PResumably NP didn't have balls because he agreed with Crouch? But you just said he only employed 'yes men' who didn't have the balls to stand their ground? So was WGS hired by RL as a 'yes man' or not?

Are you suggesting other chairmen will employ people who don't see things the same way as them then? You're saying they deliberately look for problems by hiring someone who disgrees with them? Don't you think that would be rather stupid?

There was nothing inherently wrong with giving the job to Gray over Moyes - if we had chosen Moyes and it had failed the clamour would have been that *he* was a cheap option and an obvious risk given he was only coming from Preston whereas Gray had played under Clough, played for Saints, knew the club, etc. And of course, there would have been criticism over lack of continuity and another clean-out of the back-room team. Either way plenty of scope for moaning. I really don't understand the obsession with looking in the rear-view mirror unless it's to learn lessons - in this case I see nothing wrong with the original idea, the lesson that should have been learnt was that promoting coaches - who are naturally on friendly terms with the players - is not a good idea. So criticising the appointments of Wigley and Dodd/Gorman follow, but you can't pick holes solely on the basis of hindsight. The other obsession I fail to understand is the quip about "cheap options" - how was Gray "cheaper" than Moyes? His salary? If his salary was lower then we had more to spend on players surely? His demands on transfer budget? We had just moved to SMS and had a turnover approaching £50m - plenty of scope for buying and selling (£4m Delap anyone?) but we couldn't just magic £10m or £20m from thin air for Moyes or anyone else to spend. In fact, I'm sure you'd like a comparison with P*mpey - prior to the arrival of the gun-running criminals their record signing was for just £1.5m, a figure we beat many many times. In 2004, whilst we were being criticised by some for not "moving to the next level" (Champions League presumably LOL), we spent every penny at our disposal whilst P*mpey finished the season with net funds sat in the bank account. The only other team in England who did that was Man United. And the following season we spent everything we had again, whereas P*mpey failed to spend (together with just 3 other teams). Anyway, without Gray we would never have got WGS and another Cup Final, plus we would never have had Delgado and just think what a stick you'd have missed out on there ;-)

I think there are enough facts out there in support of any of the main players without resorting to making things up - Crouch doesn't come with any cash... his £2m "bravado" is all bluff, he has never put a penny into the club directly and he never will. He wouldn't even put any cash into the club when *he* was chairman! And I noticed on another thread you were claiming RL had been "gifted" his shares - again, completely untrue. As for Mary Corbett for chairman, I can't really believe it's a serious suggestion unless it was a typo and you meant Ronnie Corbett (which would get my vote). The reality is that none of this will end until one of the following happens: * All the main players sell up and leave - that will only happen with a takeover * A splinter "Saints FC" starts up, which would probably only happen if: * We go into administration * All holders agree to sell down their personal holdings below 3% and resign from all boards

Labour are spinning the whole crisis to try to find a point of blame to which the UK electorate can relate - first it was the US and their sub-prime which had caused it all and it couldn't possibly spread to here, now it's the naughty bankers being too greedy. Back to reality, and it has far more to do with (a) government policy, (b) regulators, and © credit agencies - banks will always work within the framework and boundaries they are given, which are set by the government and regulated by the FSA. However when a credit agency says a turd is a golden ingot, that compounds the errors with the first 2 problems. Rule number 1 of politics though, find someone else to blame... I'm surprised that's not our club motto by now. Do we have a club motto??

You really are an arse sometimes alpine. Apart from a couple of desperate comments from offix and snowballs2, there weren't even any such comments about Lowe when RF Webb had problems - it's just an unfortunate part of the downturn and usually nothing to do with how the company is being run.

You're such a drama queen Wes. I could try to become all hysterical over your mistake above but there's not much point - for a start, NP had already signed Ian Pearce at this stage but you don't even mention him. You're also implying that NP could only address frailties in defence by buying a whole new one - bugger me that would mean buying a whole new squad every time we lost a game! Failed to score? Let's buy 3 new strikers Mr Chairman! How about coaching and tactics? This was the same team, bar one "improvement", that had kept a clean sheet 4 days earlier so are you saying the entire defence was useless? And after the Hull game we only played 3 more away games - no wins, no clean sheets. In fact in 3 home games, with a Prem quality keeper, we still only kept 1 clean sheet in 3 games. You are in absolutely no position to determine that NP had addressed anything, and there is no evidence of the hottest young manager in Britain addressing defensive frailties in one fell swoop is there? Hence why, returning to the subject of this thread, it's clear Crouch had no idea back then either despite his claims now to try to disrupt the club.

But if you, and exit2 and the Trust, were really Financial Advisors then you'd all be struck off by now if not in prison. It is just ridiculous that anyone can think a "chat with Wilde" is anything worthwhile to base a decision on. Myself and GM spelled it out on W4E and suffered a Legging for it, whilst you and the Trust pretended nothing was amiss. Not only Wilde, I posted a load of stuff about Dulieu's background with CapCon and Vantis and how Wilde would most likely subsequently charge his personal costs back to the club - which he did. It was endemic, even Lee Hoos thought it "all sounded good" but didn't check anything out. But it's worse than that because unlike your claim above, you and the Trust continually claimed that Wilde and Crouch had proxied you their shares - you stated it to the Echo, to the club, to the fans, and on your website. Even when I complained to the Trust, the club, Wilde and finally Supporters Direct you all covered each other's arses to pretend it was true. So even if you ignore the downright ineptitude (and Corbett and Co are included in that list), it's a damn site worse because you knowingly lied about the share proxies to help support Wilde and Crouch.

I'll get this out the way first, as for once I seem to hold a similar opinion to UP on something, although as usual he is trying to say otherwise: On the contrary, I have said just about the same about Pearson - brought in team spirit and discipline, but nothing to suggest more than being "OK". Just because I am arguing back against people like alpine who think he was "Britain's hottest young manager" (I hope you mean that in a footballing way alpine), is more a question of showing up the trite stupidity of those claims than trying to say NP was a disaster - he wasn't, at least not by 20 minutes. Yes, I'm sure the 2nd largest shareholder telling him that we should have an English manager (FFS, welcome to deepest darkest 'ampshire) steeled his resolve! The problem is it depends on what you look at - I would summarise that JP was better for style of football, especially for away games, and long-term development of players. I would say NP was better for team work and discipline, and better for home matches in terms of style of play. Much of a muchness, perhaps JP more of a long-term "vision", which was not necessarily the right decision - but it's all in hindsight and it's very easy to pick individual things to criticise in both managers.

No, I rarely go to away games now so didn't see it. You think Powell was unfit, NP thought he was fit and better brought back into the team... the point is that you can easily make excuses either way for any given match, but for a team with focus on defence, 4 loan signings in defence, a senior defender brought back in, the same team who kept a clean sheet at home... shipping 5 is not good. It's not the end of the world (unlike losing to Doncaster of course), but it's hardly evidence that we had Britain's hottest managerial prospect either. By the way, do you think there would have been "mitigating circumstances" when we lost to Doncaster? Or if we'd lost 5-0 at Wolves under GB instead of winning 6-0? No, because there is an agenda led by Crouch to exaggerate NP's credentials to try to make a point he should be making in the boardroom - and if he really knew better he'dobviously have tied NP to a 5 year contract with get-out clauses for relegation. And there is no way RL could have afforded to pay that off... so if Crouch didn't like NP's departure he should be taking a look in the mirror.

Not Lowe's signings, JP's signings... or at worst you could say Wilde's signings. Just like Pearce was Crouch's signing. More schnapps please fraulein.