Clifford Nelson Posted 19 July, 2009 Share Posted 19 July, 2009 I think it's time to close this thread. 19 has been pulling our legs for long enough. He can't possibly hold these ridicolous views, but the constant rumour mongering about Lawrie is disgraceful and has to stop now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miserableoldgit Posted 19 July, 2009 Share Posted 19 July, 2009 In no particular order: Players: Franny Benali Mick Channon Terry Paine Nick Holmes Bobby Stokes Chris Marsden Matt Le Tissier Wayne Bridge James Beattie Michael Svennson Steve Williams David Peach Jo Tessem Mick Mills Danny Wallace Mark Wright Jason Dodd Matt Oakley Marion Pahars Antti Niemi Theo Walcott Steve Moran Simon Gillett Kelvin Davis Rudi Skacel Zoltan Liptak (The last two are obviously a joke and as memorable as eachother) Non Players: Markus Liebherr Andrew Oldknow Rupert Lowe Andrew Cohen David Luker Dave Merrington Ted Bates Mark Wotte Glenn Hoddle Dave Jones Just a few names that pop into my head many simply because they were favourites at the time and many because looking back you admire their contribution and one because he was really friendly and happy to have a chat in Costa Coffee in West Quay even when we felt the need to leave him alone after the usual smile and acknowledgement. HTH Yes it does. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INFLUENCED.COM Posted 19 July, 2009 Share Posted 19 July, 2009 I think you had to be a Saints fan during Lawries time as manager to really get it and I think thats 19C's problem, I don't think he was. I was a fan during that period and young at the time, thought he was a fckin hero for grabbing Keegan, that status remained until I was told similar things re shares etc.. I agree with 19C that a Q&A to either confirm or hopefully put the rumours to bed once and for all would be welcome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clifford Nelson Posted 19 July, 2009 Share Posted 19 July, 2009 I was a fan during that period and young at the time, thought he was a fckin hero for grabbing Keegan, that status remained until I was told similar things re shares etc.. I agree with 19C that a Q&A to either confirm or hopefully put the rumours to bed once and for all would be welcome Spit it out or forever hold your peace! This whispering campaign is disgraceful! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scally Posted 19 July, 2009 Share Posted 19 July, 2009 I was a fan during that period and young at the time, thought he was a fckin hero for grabbing Keegan, that status remained until I was told similar things re shares etc.. I agree with 19C that a Q&A to either confirm or hopefully put the rumours to bed once and for all would be welcome He was at the club at the time and was given shares, is there anyone on this board who would of said no? The reverse take over was instigated by Askham and co nothing to do with Lawrie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miserableoldgit Posted 19 July, 2009 Share Posted 19 July, 2009 I was a fan during that period and young at the time, thought he was a fckin hero for grabbing Keegan, that status remained until I was told similar things re shares etc.. I agree with 19C that a Q&A to either confirm or hopefully put the rumours to bed once and for all would be welcome Told by whom? Was what you were told correct? Please don`t ever let facts get in the way of prejudice. Please explain why with other certain individuals it`s " it`s all in the past. Let it go." but with Lawrie it`s a witch hunt. I belong to a certain club and anyone that has performed wonders for that club is given life membership and short of a murder, nothing will blacken what they have achieved. Not at Saints obviously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 19 July, 2009 Share Posted 19 July, 2009 Also he forgot Andrew Cowen had some bloke called Andrew Cohen on his list. sour grapes because Lowe and Wilde have walked away, LM and LC still supporting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INFLUENCED.COM Posted 19 July, 2009 Share Posted 19 July, 2009 Was what you were told correct? That, I believe, would only be known by those involved which is why I agreed with 19C in order to put it to bed ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miserableoldgit Posted 19 July, 2009 Share Posted 19 July, 2009 I have been thinking about this. I have been supporting Saints for well over 50 years. I have been a ST holder since 1975. I like to think that I am reasonably intelligent. I like to think that I know and understand much about Saints and their history, and for that reason I have come to the conclusion that people like 19C/Sundance/Scooby/Spaceman/Fire Fighter/ Flashman etc are really nothing but mindless trolls who get a mental erection by winding people up on an internet forum that, in theory, is a medium for like minded people to exchange views. I am sorry that it has taken me that long to realise this (it must be an age thing!) but it has finally dawned. 19C etc - just get on with it, if it presses your buttons. I have more constructive and life affirming things in my life to enjoy, rather than reading the bile that you post, hoping to get a "high" from it. You really are very sad. You "enjoy" Saints in your way, and I`ll enjoy them in the way that I have for so long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miserableoldgit Posted 19 July, 2009 Share Posted 19 July, 2009 That, I believe, would only be known by those involved which is why I agreed with 19C in order to put it to bed ! Do you really think that 19C will "put it to bed?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4737_carlin Posted 19 July, 2009 Share Posted 19 July, 2009 Weston Saint, time to get out of Rupert Lowe's pocket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INFLUENCED.COM Posted 19 July, 2009 Share Posted 19 July, 2009 Do you really think that 19C will "put it to bed?" Would like to think so, along with anyone else who has been misinformed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miserableoldgit Posted 19 July, 2009 Share Posted 19 July, 2009 Would like to think so, along with anyone else who has been misinformed. Misinformation will prevent 19C from having an "opinion". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 19 July, 2009 Share Posted 19 July, 2009 had some bloke called Andrew Cohen on his list. sour grapes because Lowe and Wilde have walked away, LM and LC still supporting I know Mike. I was trying to show up his ignorance. Not that I really need to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Saint Posted 19 July, 2009 Author Share Posted 19 July, 2009 Weston Saint, time to get out of Rupert Lowe's pocket. What a strange comment. I think you misunderstand me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stthrobber Posted 19 July, 2009 Share Posted 19 July, 2009 I don't really remember anything sensationally bad about that period. The Souness scenario is up for debate, but with Souness walking out, Lawrie would argue he did the honourable thing and followed him. But as I said at the start, have I missed something over this period? I'm just off to play squash mate, so haven't got time to reply in full, but it was during his time as DoF that Bally didn't know which way to turn. On the one hand Ted Bates told him one thing and Lawrie told him another, and he was stuck in the middle. I was advised too by someone that worked for the club at the time that absolutely nothing happened at that club without LM's say so, and he was a bit of a bully, and accordingly not well liked. I've only ever spoken to him once and I found him a gentleman, deeply saddened by what had happened with the club and Lowe, but then both men are too stubborn and pig headed to draw a line under their history and move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thegaffer Posted 19 July, 2009 Share Posted 19 July, 2009 I agree with that assessment of the situation completely but that does not preclude me from voicing an opinion and no doubt those of opposing views when decisions are made in the future which may rankle them. This theory that McMenemy demands respect is simply wrong. Had he conducted himself in the role of a true diplomat and arbitrator focusing solely on the club itself as oppose to taking sides and rising above the ugliness of the past 10 or so years, then I agree he would have demanded and deserved respect. IMO McMenemy had his own agenda as much as Askham, Lowe, Crouch. Wilde and the rest instead of being the club's elder statesman a far sighted and balanced individual above and beyond reproach. You are so right. Lawrie did have his own agenda and his agenda was similar to most of the Saints fans in recent years and that was that Lowe was killing the club that Lawrie and the rest of us love. He didn't want to stand there and see Lowe bring this great club down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 19 July, 2009 Share Posted 19 July, 2009 Talk about straying from the topic. Weston publishes a link into a corrected article about Lowe, 19c for some reason hits on McMenemy then we have three pages of free for all with nothing to do with the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 19 July, 2009 Share Posted 19 July, 2009 Talk about straying from the topic. Weston publishes a link into a corrected article about Lowe, 19c for some reason hits on McMenemy then we have three pages of free for all with nothing to do with the thread. The reason is trolling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sotonjoe Posted 19 July, 2009 Share Posted 19 July, 2009 The reason is trolling. What don't you lot ignore it then if that's all you see it as? Rise above! It's no good getting into a discussion and the accusing him of trolling when we won't back down from his own point of views. Either you're up for the discussion or you're not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan The Flames Posted 19 July, 2009 Share Posted 19 July, 2009 What don't you lot ignore it then if that's all you see it as? Rise above! It's no good getting into a discussion and the accusing him of trolling when we won't back down from his own point of views. Either you're up for the discussion or you're not. It not a discussion though is it, plenty of his opinions (probably most) have been proven to be false time and time again, yet he keeps throwing the same s#hit against the wall. A discussion should influence either party. 19 is a pathetic little snide who seems to get a semi winding his fellow fans up. I don't bother getting involved with him and maybe if everyone ignored him he would play his little games elsewhere. This is the best forum ruined by one c#unt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alain Perrin Posted 19 July, 2009 Share Posted 19 July, 2009 This is the best forum ruined by one c#unt. Don't be so harsh on yourself I personally think Laurie should get a seat on merit, and no doubt what he has done for the club should be recognised. I am somewhat dubious as to the value of the £75K because you've got to shake a lot of hands to make £75K profit (not just revenue). That said, if it does, then great. The only thing I think he should be banned from is speaking on the pitch. The PA is bad enough without having to translate his Northern tones. I swear that at the last home game of the season when he spoke on the pitch I did not understand a word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan The Flames Posted 19 July, 2009 Share Posted 19 July, 2009 Don't be so harsh on yourself lol, thanks I knew there would be at least one person out there who cared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloridaMarlin Posted 19 July, 2009 Share Posted 19 July, 2009 Rupert Lowe: Our report, Southampton down to their nails as more anguish looms (27 April, page 9, Sport) wrongly suggested that the Football Association was conducting an investigation into where a reported £40m had gone missing when Mr Lowe was chairman of Southampton FC. In fact there was no missing money nor any FA investigation. We apologise unreservedly to Mr Lowe for this error. http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2009/jul/18/rupert-lowe-corrections-clarifications http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/apr/27/southampton-burnley-championship-relegation Going back to the original title of the thread (it was only three pages or so ago, so you might remember) I'm just puzzled why the litigious Rupert did not take the Guardian for a few quid, as he did The Times. By publishing an apology the Guardian performed what is known as an Offer of Amends, which can mitigate against those who might seek financial damages for defamation. No doubt, Rupert is content with The Guardian's grovelling apology. The Times' refusal to do likewise cost them £250,000 for that Martin Samuels column. Incidentally, can anyone confirm what charity did benefit from the £250,000 damages Rupert won? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alain Perrin Posted 19 July, 2009 Share Posted 19 July, 2009 Going back to the original title of the thread (it was only three pages or so ago, so you might remember) I'm just puzzled why the litigious Rupert did not take the Guardian for a few quid, as he did The Times. By publishing an apology the Guardian performed what is known as an Offer of Amends, which can mitigate against those who might seek financial damages for defamation. No doubt, Rupert is content with The Guardian's grovelling apology. The Times' refusal to do likewise cost them £250,000 for that Martin Samuels column. Incidentally, can anyone confirm what charity did benefit from the £250,000 damages Rupert won? I think I remember reading it was Saints in the Community and some mental health charity (can't remember which). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 19 July, 2009 Share Posted 19 July, 2009 Never did understand the suggestion that something underhand had happened with the 'missing millions'. The money was squandered in plain sight in serial acts of utter uselessness and unbridled hubris. Now that he has his apology from the Guardian, Lowe could conceivably be writing his own mea culpa to the club and its fans for his considerable part in its near destruction. If he is (which admittedly is a bit of a long shot), someone really should tell him not to bother. No one gives a damn. Today felt like the day we finally left the pygmies behind. I don't know I see McMenemy was in the Directors box. Do they sell tickets for that area? This is my alleged act of trolling. Verbal has a dig at those who tried to save the club so i make a light hearted comment about one of the alleged 'pygmies' still enjoying privileges and bandwagons roll. There are two sides to every argument and my advice is don't give out your unsubstantianted comments if you don't want a few challenges thrown back. The only thing I tend to take at face value are facts supported by evidence or in a public debate. Jingoistic posturing on a fans forum doesn't impress me and there are probably less than 5% of the posters whose writings I would trust and many of those I would guess hate my guts but I don't let prejudice close my eyes to their messages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamesaint Posted 20 July, 2009 Share Posted 20 July, 2009 ...there are probably less than 5% of the posters whose writings I would trust ..... and who are they?? Come on . Name names. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daren W Posted 20 July, 2009 Share Posted 20 July, 2009 This is my alleged act of trolling. Verbal has a dig at those who tried to save the club so i make a light hearted comment about one of the alleged 'pygmies' still enjoying privileges and bandwagons roll. There are two sides to every argument and my advice is don't give out your unsubstantianted comments if you don't want a few challenges thrown back. The only thing I tend to take at face value are facts supported by evidence or in a public debate. Jingoistic posturing on a fans forum doesn't impress me and there are probably less than 5% of the posters whose writings I would trust and many of those I would guess hate my guts but I don't let prejudice close my eyes to their messages. The people who tried to save our club? Who, pray tell are those people? Rupert Lowe? Michael Wilde? They would be the people who wrecked the club, brought it to its knees and then disappeared when the you know what hit the fan. Two people who loved the spotlight except it was less than favourable.... and then they just disappeared... At least Crouch put his hand in his pocket to keep the club going, so at least that balances out the six months when he was in charge. As for the "light hearted" digs at McMenemy, don't treat people like fools. It's just the usual anti McMenemy bull****. It would seem that financial incompetance is excusable but god help you if you get paid for an Ambassadorial role or get a free ticket as some people on here seem to think it's capital crime... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daren W Posted 20 July, 2009 Share Posted 20 July, 2009 Indeed. Hopefully Mr Liebherr will start sowing the seeds of change. And indeed the irony that you didn't realise my comments were aimed at you... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 20 July, 2009 Share Posted 20 July, 2009 and who are they?? Come on . Name names. . Hope i am not one of them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miserableoldgit Posted 20 July, 2009 Share Posted 20 July, 2009 The people who tried to save our club? Who, pray tell are those people? Rupert Lowe? Michael Wilde? They would be the people who wrecked the club, brought it to its knees and then disappeared when the you know what hit the fan. Two people who loved the spotlight except it was less than favourable.... and then they just disappeared... At least Crouch put his hand in his pocket to keep the club going, so at least that balances out the six months when he was in charge. As for the "light hearted" digs at McMenemy, don't treat people like fools. It's just the usual anti McMenemy bull****. It would seem that financial incompetance is excusable but god help you if you get paid for an Ambassadorial role or get a free ticket as some people on here seem to think it's capital crime... Ah, but he did it for his own gain you see. He put "conditions" on his "loan" to make himself feel important, get a good return and wasn`t thinking of the club at all. The man is a shyster unlike RL who did a good job and is beyond critisism. All according to 19C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daren W Posted 20 July, 2009 Share Posted 20 July, 2009 Ah, but he did it for his own gain you see. He put "conditions" on his "loan" to make himself feel important, get a good return and wasn`t thinking of the club at all. The man is a shyster unlike RL who did a good job and is beyond critisism. All according to 19C. Even so, it would still be better than nothing at all.... which is exactly what we got from the other three monkies... Quite why we're still talking about any of the previous bods is beyond me. I left St Marys on Saturday with a warm glow which has subsequently evaporated with this continuance of previous hostilities... Why can't people move on and enjoy an exciting new period at the club? Does seeing McMenemy in the chairmans area evoke that much anger? How very sad.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 20 July, 2009 Share Posted 20 July, 2009 and who are they?? Come on . Name names. . Speculator, Sundance Beast, Flashman at the Charge, Third Bear and a few others Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 20 July, 2009 Share Posted 20 July, 2009 Why can't people move on and enjoy an exciting new period at the club? Does seeing McMenemy in the chairmans area evoke that much anger? It doesn't, but like having a pop at Claus, picking up Pardew for not shaking hands with people and setting up other popular(ish) figures etc etc etc, it makes great bait for a troll to use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 20 July, 2009 Share Posted 20 July, 2009 Speculator, Sundance Beast, Flashman at the Charge, Third Bear and a few others [/QUOte] What exactly is the point in banning posters if they just reappear under a different alias? :smt032 Naughty pupils expelled from school aren't allowed back under a pseudonym. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 20 July, 2009 Share Posted 20 July, 2009 In no particular order: Players: Franny Benali Mick Channon Terry Paine Nick Holmes Bobby Stokes Chris Marsden Matt Le Tissier Wayne Bridge James Beattie Michael Svennson Steve Williams David Peach Jo Tessem Mick Mills Danny Wallace Mark Wright Jason Dodd Matt Oakley Marion Pahars Antti Niemi Theo Walcott Steve Moran Simon Gillett Kelvin Davis Rudi Skacel Zoltan Liptak (The last two are obviously a joke and as memorable as eachother) Non Players: Markus Liebherr Andrew Oldknow Rupert Lowe Andrew Cohen David Luker Dave Merrington Ted Bates Mark Wotte Glenn Hoddle Dave Jones Just a few names that pop into my head many simply because they were favourites at the time and many because looking back you admire their contribution and one because he was really friendly and happy to have a chat in Costa Coffee in West Quay even when we felt the need to leave him alone after the usual smile and acknowledgement. HTH Two (possibly 3 - not sure about stokes, seem to remember something, but could be wrong) of your player list have been banned for drink driving, surely they would come into the same brackett as the Disgraced Lundekvam?????????? Another two faced rape charges (Which were later dropped). As you have taken exception to Claus's conviction, i assume you will amend your list, so as not to appear to be "trolling" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 20 July, 2009 Share Posted 20 July, 2009 and who are they?? Come on . Name names. . Work it out for yourself Tame. If you read this forum regularly without a closed mind then you get to know who is worth listening to regardless of your own opinions and obviously as I am in the minority most of those whose writings I respect have views far removed from my own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 20 July, 2009 Share Posted 20 July, 2009 Work it out for yourself Tame. If you read this forum regularly without a closed mind then you get to know who is worth listening to regardless of your own opinions and obviously as I am in the minority most of those whose writings I respect have views far removed from my own. Minority..........you are out on your own pal. How you claim to love the club, is beyond me, as all you ever do on here is run it down, that and those within. You defend Stewpert to the hilt, but fail to see the damage he caused............You want to try waking up in the morning thinking nice thoughts, then maybe, just maybe, you won't be so despised on here.....you're almost in the 100% club, if it wasn't for nickh/AP and one or two others, you'd be there for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 20 July, 2009 Share Posted 20 July, 2009 The people who tried to save our club? Who, pray tell are those people? Rupert Lowe? Michael Wilde? They would be the people who wrecked the club, brought it to its knees and then disappeared when the you know what hit the fan. Two people who loved the spotlight except it was less than favourable.... and then they just disappeared... At least Crouch put his hand in his pocket to keep the club going, so at least that balances out the six months when he was in charge. As for the "light hearted" digs at McMenemy, don't treat people like fools. It's just the usual anti McMenemy bull****. It would seem that financial incompetance is excusable but god help you if you get paid for an Ambassadorial role or get a free ticket as some people on here seem to think it's capital crime... Daren would it have been necessary for Crouch to dig so deep if he hadn't backed the wrong horse? Lowe contributed to our relegation but his approach afterwards and desire for financial prudence was proven to be correct and we can only guess how things may have turned out had he not been removed from office but my guess is we wouldn't be where we are now and ran so close to becoming extinct. Don't get me wrong Mr Liebherr is great news but we were very lucky and its a risk I wouldn't want to repeat or have had to stomach in the first place. Old ground though isn't it and I'm being sucked into an agrument for an off the cuff comment in response to Verbal's desire and others to prolong the agony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 20 July, 2009 Share Posted 20 July, 2009 (edited) And indeed the irony that you didn't realise my comments were aimed at you... I did, I just chose to interpret them differently. Edited 20 July, 2009 by Nineteen Canteen spelling - don't want the wannabe journo to focus on my spelling as a stick to beat me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daren W Posted 20 July, 2009 Share Posted 20 July, 2009 Daren would it have been necessary for Crouch to dig so deep if he hadn't backed the wrong horse? Lowe contributed to our relegation but his approach afterwards and desire for financial prudence was proven to be correct and we can only guess how things may have turned out had he not been removed from office but my guess is we wouldn't be where we are now and ran so close to becoming extinct. Don't get me wrong Mr Liebherr is great news but we were very lucky and its a risk I wouldn't want to repeat or have had to stomach in the first place. Old ground though isn't it and I'm being sucked into an agrument for an off the cuff comment in response to Verbal's desire and others to prolong the agony. Oh I see, so by your standards just showing support or interest in a bid that might save the club is wrong then eh? I thought Pinacle would work, Matt said so, should I and everyone who bought their bullsheet cough up as well? Crouch stepped up to plate and helped out, he didn't need to but he did, he deserves some respect for that, not ridicule. Stumping up the money is wrong, running away from the mess you helped create isn't? You can apply the tag "Trying to save the club" to Lowe and co and yet the man who actually put his hand in his pocket to do just that is mocked, ridiculed and slandered. What a bizarre world you live in you strange little man... The reason we were so close to going out of business was two relegations under Rupert Lowe and that isn't up for debate, it's a stone cold fact. His financial prudence, as you put it, gave us ten managers in as many years and countless pay offs and free transfers and money squandered by finacial/managerial incompetance.... It's going to be harder than we thought, this moving on and letting bygones be bygones malarky, when people just can't leave Crouch or McMenemy alone? It's a thread, funnily enough, about Rupert Lowe being slandered and, quite rightly, getting an apology. Quite how we got to McMenmy and Crouch from that is beyond me.... Some people eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 20 July, 2009 Share Posted 20 July, 2009 Oh I see, so by your standards just showing support or interest in a bid that might save the club is wrong then eh? I thought Pinacle would work, Matt said so, should I and everyone who bought their bullsheet cough up as well? Crouch stepped up to plate and helped out, he didn't need to but he did, he deserves some respect for that, not ridicule. Stumping up the money is wrong, running away from the mess you helped create isn't? You can apply the tag "Trying to save the club" to Lowe and co and yet the man who actually put his hand in his pocket to do just that is mocked, ridiculed and slandered. What a bizarre world you live in you strange little man... The reason we were so close to going out of business was two relegations under Rupert Lowe and that isn't up for debate, it's a stone cold fact. His financial prudence, as you put it, gave us ten managers in as many years and countless pay offs and free transfers and money squandered by finacial/managerial incompetance.... It's going to be harder than we thought, this moving on and letting bygones be bygones malarky, when people just can't leave Crouch or McMenemy alone? It's a thread, funnily enough, about Rupert Lowe being slandered and, quite rightly, getting an apology. Quite how we got to McMenmy and Crouch from that is beyond me.... Some people eh? Daren, I wasn't talking about Pinnacle I was talking about Crouch's backing of Wilde that IMO put this club in freefall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 20 July, 2009 Share Posted 20 July, 2009 and who are they?? Come on . Name names. . They would, probably, all think the same as the Beast. Which, coincidentally, might be why he could trust them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cabrone Posted 20 July, 2009 Share Posted 20 July, 2009 If I'd bought the club I'd give Lawrie a permanent seat in the directors box. Hell I'd name a stand after him - he's a legend. Some of our greatest ever players only came here because of Lawrie and when he left we had the likes of LeTissier, Shearer and Wallace about to come through the ranks. If I met him I'd thank him. He is on a par with LeTiss for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daren W Posted 20 July, 2009 Share Posted 20 July, 2009 Daren, I wasn't talking about Pinnacle I was talking about Crouch's backing of Wilde that IMO put this club in freefall. No, that would be the relegations that put this club in freefall... At least Wilde's regime tried to get us back up, they ****ed up spectacularly but at least they tried. Lowe showed not one jot of ambition to get us back up... either times. Pinnacle or Wilde at least Crouch tried to make amends... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 20 July, 2009 Share Posted 20 July, 2009 No, that would be the relegations that put this club in freefall... At least Wilde's regime tried to get us back up, they ****ed up spectacularly but at least they tried. Lowe showed not one jot of ambition to get us back up... either times. Pinnacle or Wilde at least Crouch tried to make amends... Buy the same token then you could argue that Lowe tried to make amends... Perhaps we had 3 really good triers whose biggest crime was they couldn't try together. Like Frank's Cousin is always saying it's not the supporting of Lowe that concerns us 'luvvies' it's the lack of balance and blind assumption that he should be the fall guy (Minus the monster truck) - on that note perhaps Crouch and Wilde were the Dukes of Hazzard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scally Posted 20 July, 2009 Share Posted 20 July, 2009 Buy the same token then you could argue that Lowe tried to make amends... Perhaps we had 3 really good triers whose biggest crime was they couldn't try together. Like Frank's Cousin is always saying it's not the supporting of Lowe that concerns us 'luvvies' it's the lack of balance and blind assumption that he should be the fall guy (Minus the monster truck) - on that note perhaps Crouch and Wilde were the Dukes of Hazzard? The blokes gone, move on FFS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daren W Posted 20 July, 2009 Share Posted 20 July, 2009 Buy the same token then you could argue that Lowe tried to make amends... Perhaps we had 3 really good triers whose biggest crime was they couldn't try together. Like Frank's Cousin is always saying it's not the supporting of Lowe that concerns us 'luvvies' it's the lack of balance and blind assumption that he should be the fall guy (Minus the monster truck) - on that note perhaps Crouch and Wilde were the Dukes of Hazzard? How the blue blazes is sacking a good manager, bringing in TWO numpties and getting the club relegated AGAIN, making amends????????? He's maligned as the fall guy as he IS the fall guy. One relegation is unlucky, two is ****ing careless.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 20 July, 2009 Share Posted 20 July, 2009 How the blue blazes is sacking a good manager, bringing in TWO numpties and getting the club relegated AGAIN, making amends????????? Lowe was trying, very trying;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 20 July, 2009 Share Posted 20 July, 2009 The blokes gone, move on FFS Is your name Daren? He doesn't need the intelligensia to help debate the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts