Wes Tender

But his past record is such that he could turn yet again given the circumstances beneficial to him.

Well, if you're so enamoured with the Pompey forum, why don't you sod off there, then? Or as others have suggested to those skinflints who moan about it, go and set up your own forum and then see what it costs to run it. Anyway, this forum is free too for up to 3 posts.

Valid point Bern and I said as much on another thread where I said that ultimately it was the instability of changing manager three times in a season that caused our relegation from the Premiership and almost again from the Fizzy Pop league. Whilst not defending Crouch, Burley leaving was not his fault, but Dodd/Gorman was a mistake commensurate with the Wigley appointment. Had we been relegated again, I would have been happy to call for Crouch's head. As it turns out, Pearson kept us up with an improving team and I would have been very happy to have let him continue. Instead we have had further disruption at board level and also with the management. It might succeed against the odds, but if it fails, then it will not be unexpected based as it is on precedent. But Lowe, Wilde, Crouch all ought to go.

What may be to come is based firmly on what has been. Our current circumstances of being in dire financial straits is due to our relegation from the Premiership and those who caused our relegation are accountable to us. All very well to be optimistic for our prospects, to look forward to seeing the new brand of football that has largely been dictated by the lack of finance, therefore through necessity rather than choice, but we are in a wait and see position at the moment. Some are optimistic of our chances, others are cautious. If that caution is based on the previous records of the two failed Chairmen who jointly run the club at the moment, then that is entirely understandable and it is not for others to deride them for their stance. They are as entitled to their viewpoint as anybody else.

I think that the new site set up is excellent and the lads are to be applauded for all their efforts. The cost of £5 really is minimal and there is even an option not to pay it, but still get three free posts from it. As with anything, nothing's for nothing. All the cheapskates will just have to make longer posts anticipating the responses and answering them too If they feel desperate to continue their debate after they have used their allocation, then they'll either have to return the following day, or cough up their fiver. Whilst they're about it, they can tell us where else they could get any form of entertainment for just 10p a day. I'm amazed if anybody said they couldn't afford it. After all, being on here mostly presumes that they have bought a computer and pay for broadband access. As for the students, either forego a couple of pints to pay for it, or add it onto your student debt. A fiver won't make much difference to the thousands you will end up paying anyway.

Answering your questions would be easy from a fans perspective. How much have any of them actually put in so far? What has changed to make them feel that they ought to put in anything now? They are currently in penny pinching mode big time. So not a chance in hell that away fans will be subsidised. Why, they've withdrawn the subidy for home fans' travel, so hardly likely to subsidise away fans, are they?

Is the link not working for others too? I haven't been able to indulge my therapy for a couple of days now.

What having three managers in a season tells me is that the club went through such a period of instability that the end result was that we were relegated. And we did the same thing this last season and almost suffered the same fate again. What it tells me is that Wigley should not have been appointed at all. It tells me that the time to have appointed Redknapp was when he first left West Ham, when we had a vacancy here and before he got involved with Pompey. It tells me that having a new manager a year for whatever reason, regardless of the rights and wrongs of it all, is a bad thing. What we needed was stability, not a constant revolving door manager policy. I don't care how you dress it up, ultimately the number of managerial changes we had caused our downfall and everything since our relegation has led directly to our current parlous position. You can get behind everybody at the club if you like. I'll get behind the team and support the players provided that they give their all, but I'll never forget or forgive the people who have run the club into the ground this past decade. It is eminently possible to support the players at matches without supporting the board, you know.

Well, what he did say about unrest at the club, was hypocritical, as he was the architect of one of the biggest upheavals in the club's history. There are plenty of things that he could comment on and in such a manner that he could gain agreement for. As the alleged Chairman of the Football Board, comment on matters regarding the team, players leaving or arriving, results of matches are all matters that are in his domain. But there have been several instances already that Lowe has stolen his thunder, giving rise to questions as to his whereabouts.

Well, we've been watching the team for almost exactly corresponding terms. My first match was in April 1974 when I watched from the Milton End as we held Manchester United to a 1-1 draw and both us and Tommy Docherty's United were relegated. The difference with your analogy and current circumstances is that you are talking about the manager not being sacked at that time, but currently we are discussing the Chairman who ought to be given another chance in your eyes. If it were not the board that we are discussing, I would gladly have given Pearson another chance even had we been relegated under him as I see many of Lawrie's attributes in him. You say that Lowe and Wilde should be given the benefit of the doubt and we should support the Saints regardless, but one can perfectly well hold a position whereby one supports the team but not the board. And that is what I will continue to do.

No, that is the way that you can look at it. I already said how I could look at it. He failed and Lowe failed before him. This isn't following some laws of physics or maths where two minusses make a plus, or two negatives make a positive. The possibility is that two failures running a business together will make an even bigger failure of it than the one, but we'll just have to wait and see on that one.

The little winky/smiley things cost extra. They are £1 each to use, to prevent the posts from appearing flippant. So gratuitous use of them is frowned upon.::cool:

Wilde said in the Echo Did I dream it, or did he actually ally himself with other major shareholders and force out the old board? Presumably that was OK and excusable because at that time they were not the minority, but I'm also pretty sure that at the time they did it because they derided the efforts of the previous lot. Now the two failed Chairman form an alliance the main objective of which until I can be convinced otherwise is to protect their shareholdings and he has the brass neck to say that there is no room for that attitude at Southampton. There was room for that attitude when it was you that had it, Michael, but not apparently now that you are friends supposedly with your former bete noir. I'm afraid that you lost any respect I might have had for you when you turned Quisling. A bit rich attempting to hold any moral high ground now when most would wish that you, Lowe, Askham et al could all sell up and leave our club to others with no baggage.

Naturally it all depends on what is classed as random bull**** or saboteurs. One man's bull**** is another's humble opinion. Some who call others saboteurs for being critical of the current board, were quite happy to level similar criticisms at the previous one. But I'm entirely happy in the ability of the moderators to rule on these things with impartiality.

I did say that it would have been mischievous and mitigated it with the comparison of how historically he had been quite free to broadcast that £25 million would have been enough for him to vacate his chairmanship. Perhaps the more pertinent question now would be to remind him of that and ask how much it would take now.

Just to get this straight. Are you inferring that the equivalent cost of a couple of pints of beer is somehow beyond the pocket of anybody who posts on here?

This is the harsh reality that ought not to be ignored unless you are a dreamer or a fantasist. As you righly say, we aren't a club who can turn round and tell some predatory Premiership club that should any of our youngsters show real talent that it's hands off, he's not for sale. Our dire financial situation has backed us into a corner so that we are forced to play the youngsters, ready or not. If any of them really shine and a Premiership club offers to pay megabacks for them, does anybody really believe that the lure of the bright lights and the thick wallet won't entice them away from us? If we are not bought out by investors with serious cash soon, then the policy of selling any player that shows promise and using the proceeds to keep our head above water is a downwards spiral that will be hard to reverse. ps. Be careful of including NOWT, especially in capitals. Misguided Missile will have you down as a Northerner.

Everything I said was perfectly reasonable and based on what Lowe himself had indicated. At the time of his ousting by Wilde, he had stated that he wanted to sell his shares and leave the club, but there was a proviso that his cronies would receive an offer at the same price for their shares too. I call them his cronies because they are the people who colluded to bring him in to the club at the time of the reverse takeover, they having benefitted financially in the process. They have continued to collude with him by allying their shares to his poxy 6% to keep him and them in positions of power or influence, so I think that calling them his cronies is perfectly apt. Asking him what price he would consider acceptable for his shares would be a little mischievous, but is just the other side of the coin where he used to tell the World that if anybody put up £25 million he would move aside as Chairman. Presumably that figure has gone quite some way South currently. You ask why Lowe should submit himself to questioning by the fans? Well, first off, its a tradition with precedent. You might think that the only way ought to be via a friendly chat at a pre-season friendly, but that is for toadies and if you knew Lowe at all, you'd realise that if the questioning was critical of him, he's soon refuse to answer. As Um says, you obviously know nothing of the Solent Forums. They are generally well ordered environments, but the essence of them is that they are a platform for fans to ask questions of the people running the club under the jurisdiction of an independent chairman, the Radio Solent journalist. Somehow, you ignore the other side of that coin, that Lowe is able to argue his side of things too. Or don't you believe that he would mount a capable defence?

Why? Are we introducing kids for a quid?

I hadn't realised that the Northam would be open to home fans, so bought tickets for my son and me in the Kingsland block right next to the corner closest to the Northam, as it had seemed quite lively at the Celtic match when viewed from the Chapel stand. But it was interesting to see the Northam side on like that. They definitely outsang the Hammers. I'm also worried about the lack of atmosphere we will have with corners closed and a full uptake of away supporters in the Northam.

Lowe had obviously not anticipated being back in control, as he rather conveniently had made other arrangements for a prior engagement some time ago. As he won't be there, I'll not bother going either, as without him it's going to be a rather sterile and bland meeting. If I were going and Lowe was too, I'd probably feel inclined to ask him if he and his cronies were still adamant that they would be prepared to sell their shares if an offer was made for all of them and if so, what price would they settle for, bearing in mind that they were at last priced at a level commensurate with our situation?

Yes, I see that too.

I have been excited with anticipation that we will either survive (when we were in the Premiership) or improve before every season except this one. This one I'm just plain apprehensive. I'm going to wait a few games before making any judgement about whether I'm going to be excited or not.

All the paper talk means nothing at all. I agree that it gives our players the greatest of incentives to prove them all wrong. And if any of the rival managers think that we will be easy, they might be right, but the problem last season was that they thought we would be hard to beat, so defended with everybody behind the ball and hit us on the break. I would love to see them trying to play an open game against us.

I have. It hasn't happened yet....