The premature Saints Web Unity thread.

[um pahars]

Think folk have misinterpreted Steve's perspective... and that is a common trait on here when the 'lowe' lord is mentioned in a post - As I understand Steves post its about pointing out that for whatever reason' date='[/b'] the biggest factor in our fall into Admin was the reduction in gate.

 

I don't think people misinterpreted Steve's post, as Steve was clear that he was blaming those who put their hatred of Lowe before supporting the team. Steve never attempted to point out for whatever reason.

 

"if more people had ignored the fact that Lowe was the chairman and "supported" the team, we wouldn't find ourselves in this complete ****up of a situation".

 

He did not go into other valid reasons for staying away e.g. poor results, poor performances, poor value for money etc etc etc

 

IMHO those that boycotted were the least significant with regards numbers and ££££'s, with those who stayed away due to poor performances and results easily outweighing them.

 

And on top of that, falling attendances was only one part of a much bigger problem.

 

The active anti-Lowe boycotters were a small part of the falling attendance issue, with falling attendances being only a part of a larger problem, which is why I find it hard to blame this small pocket for the mess we ended up with.

[Frank's cousin]

Yep, trivialise any consideration/discussion of the reason in the cause of delivering your agenda, why dont you.

 

engage brain please Alpine and take note that there are two SEPERATE questions and this was in no way trivialising...as to agend... yawn...Zzzzzzz

 

Can I ask you what possible 'Agenda' could I have, I am just a fan witha na opinion who enjoys using forums such as this to express it - how can this be an Agenda? Pleae you have lost me ....

[Draino76]

Hmmmmm. Not much unity yet.

[Frank's cousin]

I don't think people misinterpreted Steve's post, as Steve was clear that he was blaming those who put their hatred of Lowe before supporting the team. Steve never attempted to point out for whatever reason.

 

"if more people had ignored the fact that Lowe was the chairman and "supported" the team, we wouldn't find ourselves in this complete ****up of a situation".

 

He did not go into other valid reasons for staying away e.g. poor results, poor performances, poor value for money etc etc etc

 

IMHO those that boycotted were the least significant with regards numbers and ££££'s, with those who stayed away due to poor performances and results easily outweighing them.

 

And on top of that, falling attendances was only one part of a much bigger problem.

 

The active anti-Lowe boycotters were a small part of the falling attendance issue, with falling attendances being only a part of a larger problem, which is why I find it hard to blame this small pocket for the mess we ended up with.

 

Thats fair enough, but i think maybe what he was also trying to bring into the equation is that very difficult question: Fans of any club like to see themselves as teh best, teh miost loyal and the way we show this to the outside world is by demonstrating thsi during the most trying and difficult times, not just during cup finals and prem success - as with all clubs there is always a drop offf the lower you go...afterall how many time on here has someone pointed out that pompey only had 8000 when in the lower reaches of the CCC? - therefore, I think what Steve was questioning was you cant have it both ways - believe we are a big club with 25K plus week in week out support if the moment it gets tough and football crap it drops to 15 K .... and that many of these had that convenient excuse that Lowe was the reason - To be fair that is a valid question even though it will get some fans backs up.

 

I think waht we really need to ask is how many would we have seen attend had we played teh same crap football with the same style and lack of success under anyone else eg Lowe not around - the answer is we woul probably have had teh same lower gates as every other club would have done.

 

As to 'the entertain them and they will come' argument fair enough but it is a bit chicken and egg if you dont have a sugar daddy funding more quality - do we stay away until the team gives us something to cheer about, or do we attend despite the poor fair to ensure the warchest is full and thus we can afford a better class of player - for some its this latter that is important for others it appears the former - whether we should judge each other on that score is another matter.

 

I dont think there is an easy answer, but maybe we just all need to be more realistic about what sort of club we really are rather than basing it on the potential we have or on teh following during past glories?

[Frank's cousin]

Hmmmmm. Not much unity yet.

 

It OK there will be one way or the other ;-)

[Gingeletiss]

Sorry thats where we disagree - The club committed to spending 7.5 mill during Wilde first stint - backed by the then football board (of which Mr Crouch was Chairman) and teh PLC board on the understanding that Wilde had made promised of investment - This investment never happened and when we failed to get promoted this left not only the hole of the parachute loss, but also the ever increasing hole due to costs (with new high wage earners) outstripping revenue. Wilde was then ousted and fell out with CRouch, I suspect because was mightly fecked off that the promise of investment were pi ss in the wind - but Crouch needs to accept he should have had this signed sealed and delivered BEFORE spending was approved - The following season saw Burley depart and the overdarft increase as gates began to reduce as the quality of play declined. Crouch began some measures of cost cutting, but stated no one was leaving, and then after a brief flirt of Dodd and Gorman brought in Pearson who surprised everyone and kept uis up onthe last day --- in the meantime Lowe must have though its all going tits up... the OD was still not under control, the cash reserves had been spent and the revenue was falling - So he decided to do something about it - now as fans we all know that this was a mistake because of the feeling towards LOwe - he probably did not even register it yet could possibly have staved off a bit of it by keeping Pearson... I bet in hindsight he would probably reluctantly agree.

 

The only way back in for Lowe was with Wilde and that meant Crouch out - a mess - but buy this time the debt was there, the question was could it be maintained or reduced or woudl it grow? The moment fans stopped going for whatever reason we were doomed as as soon as the big wage earners returned from loan and could not be sold or loaned again we had no way of controlling the cost base...unless we had 25K + at each game and that was not evn possible when we were pushing for the playoffs under Burley --- and the rest is history.

 

Many see this as highly emotional divisive stuff and its easy to get drawn into it in such a way and the whole thing has a sad sense of irony - the fan base at one time criticising Lowe for being tightfisted and too prudent and lacking ambition when in the prem - one of teh reasons for relegation - only for us to end up as a club doing the opposite under Wilde (and Crouch) which compounded a problem - as they say its easy being an armchair chairman - all no doubt thought they were doing what was best.... The fact reamins although not blaming the fans in any way, the only way out would ahve been regular sell outs even under Crouch, because had teh club been doing OK financially I doubt he would have bothered coming back.

 

Frank........yet again, either I've missed your point, or you have missed mine. All the above is true, but why should the few, who boycotted the club, be held to blame. We did not get the club into debt, no more so, than those who attended last season . The blame can only be atributed to those in charge, and in the main, this was Stewpert......true or not true??

[Frank's cousin]

Frank........yet again, either I've missed your point, or you have missed mine. All the above is true, but why should the few, who boycotted the club, be held to blame. We did not get the club into debt, no more so, than those who attended last season . The blame can only be atributed to those in charge, and in the main, this was Stewpert......true or not true??

 

We could go on and on ;-) - it is TRUE that those boycotting ..genuinely in protest did NOT get the club in debt... what did was the successive boards believeing their strategy could be supported by he fan base... in the first instance with Wilde's (to a leeser extent for sure Crouch) spend it and we will get promoted policy - and if we dont fans will still come as we have seen during teh promotion puch policy - followed by Lowe's get rid of expensive earners, play the kids in anexciting attacking dutch total football way to enterating and that will a) reduce overhead by getting rid of older players/ b) show the 'progeessive way we are run.... etc

 

In both cas they misjudged the fanbase interms of what is required to get the to go - they believed in the blind loyalty that for years we had been saying was the spirit of saints...

[um pahars]

therefore' date=' I think what Steve was questioning was you cant have it both ways - believe we are a big club with 25K plus week in week out support if the moment it gets tough and football crap it drops to 15 K [/quote']

 

I struggle to see how you read that from what Granty has posted.

 

There was no mention of the dynamics of success, or lack of it, on attendances, instead an attack that had those who stayed away due to their dislike of Lowe were the cause of our current predicament. IMHO this is way off the mark.

 

We are no different from 99% of other clubs out there and the reality is a drop in division/performances/results/opposition will impact on attendances & therefore revenues.

 

The biggest influence on attendances lies within these areas and the biggest influence on those areas lies not with the fans.

 

I think waht we really need to ask is how many would we have seen attend had we played teh same crap football with the same style and lack of success under anyone else eg Lowe not around - the answer is we woul probably have had teh same lower gates as every other club would have done.

 

The biggest single factor on gates is success and so i'm sure that crap performances would have impacted on attendances.

 

However, in the absence of that success there might be an opportunity to engender a spirit of unity and togetherness and maintain attendances (as shown by Norwich).

 

Sadly, Lowe, Wilde, Wotte or Poortvliet were never ever going to be able to provide the figurehead/passion/spirit of unity, whereas given a more empathatic board it may have been possible.

 

As to 'the entertain them and they will come' argument fair enough but it is a bit chicken and egg if you dont have a sugar daddy funding more quality - do we stay away until the team gives us something to cheer about' date=' or do we attend despite the poor fair to ensure the warchest is full and thus we can afford a better class of player - for some its this latter that is important for others it appears the former - whether we should judge each other on that score is another matter. [/quote']

 

There will be some that will turn up come what may, there will be some that turn up out of solidarity and a desire to contribute in the bad times and there will be some who will only come if they perceive it as worthwhile (relative to cost/performance/results/value for money).

 

We are no different than 99% of the clubs out there, so I have no idea why people insist on trying to prtray our fanbase as any different. Beyond the loyal hardcore you have to provide them with a reason to turn up.

 

Steve blaming the boycotters for the current mess is just quite simply wide of the mark.

[Frank's cousin]

 

Steve blaming the boycotters for the current mess is just quite simply wide of the mark.

 

Thing is UP is he REALLY doing that or reading betyween teh lines just blaming those no shows for whatever reason - the dissapointmnet that comes with the realization that outside teh prem we are a lot smaller that we would all like to believe?

[Frank's cousin]

 

Steve blaming the boycotters for the current mess is just quite simply wide of the mark.

 

Thing is UP is he REALLY doing that or reading betyween the lines just blaming those no shows for whatever reason - the dissapointment that comes with the realization that outside the prem we are a lot smaller that we would all like to believe?

[um pahars]

Thing is UP is he REALLY doing that or reading betyween teh lines just blaming those no shows for whatever reason -

 

Well, I think the line:

 

"if more people had ignored the fact that Lowe was the chairman and "supported" the team",

 

was rather aimed at those who couldn't ignore the fact that Lowe was Chairman and not aimed at those that stayed away for a myriad of other reasons.

[Gingeletiss]

Thing is UP is he REALLY doing that or reading betyween the lines just blaming those no shows for whatever reason - the dissapointment that comes with the realization that outside the prem we are a lot smaller that we would all like to believe?

 

Frank......we've always been small, it's only in some fans eye's that we've been big. Make no mistake, we punched well above our weight for a number of years.

 

IMHO of course