Thoughts of Wilde Part II

[washsaint]

Well, I have always been very dubious about Wilde from the moment he came on the scene. However, the answers to the questions put to him were full, frank and open.

 

It would seem that he is a good example (with Crouch) of why a fan is not always the best chairman of a club. The team that wass put in place was terrible and we're now reaping the 'benefits' of that.

 

Also a big dig at Crouch & co (and Fulthorpe) by stating that the club will only enter formal negotiations with interested parties once they prove they ahve the funds in place. What the hell were the last lot and Seymour Pierce up to and how much money was wasted on wild goose chases.

[Wes Tender]

I just wish the bloody lot of them would disappear, never to darken our beloved club ever again.....

[Amesbury Saint]

I just wish the bloody lot of them would disappear, never to darken our beloved club ever again.....

 

instead its the fans that are disappearing

[InvictaSaint]

I wouldn't call Wilde's answer to Stephen Squibb's question as open or frank, TBH. Neatly side-stepped, like an accomplished politician.

[ottery st mary]

washsaint

Not very clear which Chairman you are talking about here.

Dubious

Not full frank and open

A fan or pretends to be a fan not best to be Chairman

Some of the rubbish teams put in place in recent years

Dig at other Directors and interested financial people who want to help club

Money wasted on wild goose chases

Are you talking about Wildey or Lowey or BOTH or all recent Directors?

Are you being Full Frank and open about yout loyalties to a certain individual?

Are you a true fan or are you trying to tell us that Wildey is now towing the party line and as long as he does that and behaves all will be fine.

I find it very strange and to me at least you amongst a group of fellow posters appear to be a party political broadcast and nothing else really matters. You never see the red and white stripes in my opinion.

[Wes Tender]

And why does this need a separate thread when there is a perfectly good one already running on this very subject? Is it solely an ego thing?

[um pahars]

Well, I have always been very dubious about Wilde from the moment he came on the scene. However, the answers to the questions put to him were full, frank and open.

 

I certainly wouldn't call the answer given to Stevn Squibb full, frank and open. In fact the response is pretty evasive and does not answer the question posed.

 

For me, the question touched upon one of the most important issues, but Wilde failed to respond in any coherent or cogent sense.

 

There were some good snippets in there, mixed in with some noddy stuff, along with a big dash of spin.

 

If anything, this initiative just highlighted the shortcomings of a "write in with your questions".

 

There is no opportunity to push for a full answer, no opportunity to challenge the answers given and it is basically a chance for those in power to rehearse their reply and use the Echo as a platform to provide a one sided response.

 

Nothing beats a good old face to face grilling so I wonder what plans there are for Lowe & Wilde to face the supporters.

 

It would seem that he is a good example (with Crouch) of why a fan is not always the best chairman of a club. The team that wass put in place was terrible and we're now reaping the 'benefits' of that.

 

Wilde states that the main reason we find ourselves with such fundamental financial problems is down to relegation and the drop in income (relegation overseen by Lowe), compounded by last seasons overspend (an overspend by a board constituted by Wilde, and overseen by Wilde).

 

Also a big dig at Crouch & co (and Fulthorpe) by stating that the club will only enter formal negotiations with interested parties once they prove they ahve the funds in place.

 

I'm not really sure how you link Crouch to the response given by Wilde. It was clearly aimed at the Fulthorpe consortium and was a simple put up or shut up.

 

Whilst I'm sure talks will not go forward with time wasters or those without proof of funds, the directors would not be doing their job if they did not consider every oppotunity to find and answer to our funding problems (however these materialise).

 

Some may be loons, some may be time wasters, some may be fishing and some may be real, but only a fool would dismiss any approach out of hand.

 

What the hell were the last lot and Seymour Pierce up to and how much money was wasted on wild goose chases.

 

I would imagine that they were doing exactly the same as Collins Stewart were doing before them.

 

And this wild goose chase is the same wild goose chase that every team is on in an attempt to find outside investment.

 

I presume you were much happier with the concept of LongLife Saint & Barry the Briefcase going round his photocopier clients in an attempt to find some funding:rolleyes:

[um pahars]

Please ignore the:

and overseen by Wilde).

I've paid my fiver Mr Grant, so please sort the edit function out you slacker!!!!

[Mr X]

Well, I have always been very dubious about Wilde from the moment he came on the scene. However, the answers to the questions put to him were full, frank and open.

 

It would seem that he is a good example (with Crouch) of why a fan is not always the best chairman of a club. The team that wass put in place was terrible and we're now reaping the 'benefits' of that.

 

Also a big dig at Crouch & co (and Fulthorpe) by stating that the club will only enter formal negotiations with interested parties once they prove they ahve the funds in place. What the hell were the last lot and Seymour Pierce up to and how much money was wasted on wild goose chases.

 

I disagree imo he did his best to avoid answering honestly and directly, telling fans want they want to hear

[dubai_phil]

 

Nothing beats a good old face to face grilling so I wonder what plans there are for Lowe & Wilde to face the supporters.

 

 

QUOTE]

 

To be honest, although we all have a whole heap of questions, I was actually enjoying the fact that our Board had learnt to simply STFU

 

It's a really tough call, between "the need to know" and the "we don't like you so you should be not seen and not heard"

 

Frankly I think things have been slightly better of late because of the lack of foot in mouth pronouncements. We all just KNOW that the minute Rupert opens his mouth in an interview the wrong things will come out (al la Solent!)

 

I am a fan of open and clear communication, but as we've already seen from the other thread, no matter what MW said it has seen the divisions appear around interpretation. I think they are both better off sticking their heads back down behind the parapets for another couple of months and let the players and coaches do the talking

[um pahars]

I think they are both better off sticking their heads back down behind the parapets for another couple of months and let the players and coaches do the talking

 

You may have a point there Phil. I certainly would prefer nothing to one sided spin on the OS and in The Echo.

 

I would still like to see them come out to meet the supporters, but in the absence of that, I would probably vote for radio silence.

[Professor]

For the Chairman to respond to fan's questions, instead of just issuing press statements etc., can only be a good thing. Wilde could have opted for an interview with a Journo and just covered subjects he decided. I don't suppose there will be question and answer sessions every few months as there would be no new questions for people to raise, but the more opportunities he and RL find to communicate the better, because people will make their own assumptions otherwise, and criticise the lack of communication. We do have the chairman's notes in home programmes, which traditionally has been the main medium between board and fans, but its always interesting to read more about the club in the press.

[ottery st mary]

Sorry, who is the Chairman?

Iam confused but then I am most of the time when it comes to who is rumming the show.

What is Wildey up to or Lowey come to that. There is something just around the corner.

Miss Staveley could knock a few heads together. Wildey, Lowey and Crouchie. Like Mrs Thatcher and the old boys club being wacked with her handbag.

I wonder, has Miss Staveley got a handbag. Bring back Mary Corbett, I say.

[Bon Call Night]

You may have a point there Phil. I certainly would prefer nothing to one sided spin on the OS and in The Echo.

 

I would still like to see them come out to meet the supporters, but in the absence of that, I would probably vote for radio silence.

 

It doesn't matter what they do they'll p1ss someone off and your comment highlights exactly why.

 

If they come out and say anything that isn't rosy then they are negative, presiding over disaster or ruining our club.

 

If they answer positively then they are spinning and being evasive. I really don't see the point of their communicating at all.

 

What will meeting the supporters achieve, an opportunity for people like you to ask questions you know damn well they cannot answer fully and openly and to then turn around and accuse them of hiding the truth.

 

We know what Lowe's view are:

 

Reduce costs, promote the youngsters and repair the damage done to the financial stability caused by relegation and overly speculative player purchases.

 

Wilde is there to give Lowe a mandate to carry through his objectives.

 

I am just p1ssed off at the constant bickering from people making up 'facts', not you personally, but you have a knack of twisting them to fit you views, to beat Lowe, Wilde, JP, the team, etc over the head with.

 

It is time we all reset our attitudes and move forward. The past has happened, nobody can undo it. All we can do is continue forward and try not repeat past mistakes. This is as important for the board as it is for the fans.

[scooby]

I just wish the bloody lot of them would disappear, never to darken our beloved club ever again.....

 

I'm sorry that Lowe steadying the ship, cultivating youth and bringing total football + the golden duo to the mickey mouse is not good enough for you.

[Professor]

Sorry, who is the Chairman?

Iam confused but then I am most of the time when it comes to who is rumming the show.

What is Wildey up to or Lowey come to that. There is something just around the corner.

Miss Staveley could knock a few heads together. Wildey, Lowey and Crouchie. Like Mrs Thatcher and the old boys club being wacked with her handbag.

I wonder, has Miss Staveley got a handbag. Bring back Mary Corbett, I say.

Sorry Ottery, didn't realise that Devon was so far out of touch! Actually, I enjoyed your post, both witty and amusing!

For those who really aren't sure, chairman of the football club board is Michael Wilde, Jersey-based businessman who bought a package of SLH shares after the club was relegated, saying his target was to help the club get back into the top flight. Rupert Lowe, well known by reputation, is chairman of the SLH board that owns the football club. The two have fairly equal shareholdings in SLH plc, so neither can 'run the show' without the support of the other. Poortvliet runs the team, and MW has stated that on player moves the two chairmen consult with him.

In common with other team managers, the head coach may sometimes lose a player he would prefer to keep. This happens because there are financial issues to balance with the football ones, but MW has pointed out that two recent bids for Saints players have been rejected. Seems positive, except for the Jeremiahs. There is no suggestion that JP has any players foisted on him that he doesn't want, (as appears to have been done at Newcastle) and JP may well initiate some purchases, eg Antony Pulis, who a lot of us are not yet sure about, but hope to be convinced.

[ottery st mary]

Sorry Ottery, didn't realise that Devon was so far out of touch! Actually, I enjoyed your post, both witty and amusing!

For those who really aren't sure, chairman of the football club board is Michael Wilde, Jersey-based businessman who bought a package of SLH shares after the club was relegated, saying his target was to help the club get back into the top flight. Rupert Lowe, well known by reputation, is chairman of the SLH board that owns the football club. The two have fairly equal shareholdings in SLH plc, so neither can 'run the show' without the support of the other. Poortvliet runs the team, and MW has stated that on player moves the two chairmen consult with him.

In common with other team managers, the head coach may sometimes lose a player he would prefer to keep. This happens because there are financial issues to balance with the football ones, but MW has pointed out that two recent bids for Saints players have been rejected. Seems positive, except for the Jeremiahs. There is no suggestion that JP has any players foisted on him that he doesn't want, (as appears to have been done at Newcastle) and JP may well initiate some purchases, eg Antony Pulis, who a lot of us are not yet sure about, but hope to be convinced.

 

Cheers prof

Deep down I love them all and trust they will do there best for us all.

Have a word and try to get the other lot back on board it might help in the long run. More results needed soon.

[um pahars]

The two have fairly equal shareholdings in SLH plc,

 

Wilde has 16.5% of the PLC's shares.

 

Lowe has 5.6% of the PLC's shares.

[70's Mike]

Wilde has 16.5% of the PLC's shares.

 

Lowe has 5.6% of the PLC's shares.

 

A fact always conviently forgotten

[rocknrollman no2]

Wilde has 16.5% of the PLC's shares.

 

Lowe has 5.6% of the PLC's shares.

 

 

So how come Lowe seems to be making all the decisions?

[Fowllyd]

So how come Lowe seems to be making all the decisions?

 

Because he's the executive chairman (effectively chairman and CEO rolled into one) of SLH. SFC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of SLH. Level of shareholding has nothing to do with it.

 

Edit - level of shareholding is not immaterial. If I said I wanted to be exec chair of SLH I don't think I'd get the job. Lowe has 5.6% of shares personally, his allies (who will vote with him) increase that to about 29% I think, though it may be less. Add Wilde's 16% and you have a sufficiently large minority to make it highly unlikely that you'll be voted down. So the current set-up is an agreement between the two.

Edited 6 September, 2008 by Fowllyd

[rocknrollman no2]

Because he's the executive chairman (effectively chairman and CEO rolled into one) of SLH. SFC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of SLH. Level of shareholding has nothing to do with it.

 

Thanks for that Fowllyd.

But does Lowes position also mean that he tells the Head Coach what players to buy and what players he cant use?

Seems to me that Lowe has too much of a say in our club.

Been here before me thinks.

[Fowllyd]

Thanks for that Fowllyd.

But does Lowes position also mean that he tells the Head Coach what players to buy and what players he cant use?

Seems to me that Lowe has too much of a say in our club.

Been here before me thinks.

 

That I really can't answer. There's plenty on here who think they can, though...

[VectisSaint]

So how come Lowe seems to be making all the decisions?

Because the share of brain cells is inversely proportional to the amount of shares held. Lapdogs do not make good decision makers.

[Wes Tender]

I'm sorry that Lowe steadying the ship, cultivating youth and bringing total football + the golden duo to the mickey mouse is not good enough for you.

 

No. I'm a perfectionist and he falls very far short of the mark.

 

It was Lowe who holed the ship in the first place, to use another nautical metaphor. Cultivating the youth was solely down to not being able to afford paying the wages of those players capable enough of earning decent wages as a result of him holing the ship. And as for the total football, is that what we played against such mighty and illustrious opposition such as Blackpool?

 

I didn't think much of it. It seems a bit hit and miss to me.

[Oz]

I'm sorry that Lowe steadying the ship, cultivating youth and bringing total football + the golden duo to the mickey mouse is not good enough for you.

 

 

lowe out!

[VectisSaint]

Trying to ignore the ramblings of the resident troll, but this nonsense about the golden duo. What does Wotte do (if you see what I mean)? Other than manage the reserves his role is rather minor, yet originally he was touted as a major part of the revoluiion. No mention of him in Wilde's poodle parlour chit chat (does Wilde know who he is or has Lowe perhaps not introduced them yet). I thought he was going to be the one bringing in players, while Jan the Man did the coaching, but it seems its only Lowe and Jan involved (oh sorry forgot the lap dog as well), and not Wotte.

[Wes Tender]

Trying to ignore the ramblings of the resident troll, but this nonsense about the golden duo. What does Wotte do (if you see what I mean)? Other than manage the reserves his role is rather minor, yet originally he was touted as a major part of the revoluiion. No mention of him in Wilde's poodle parlour chit chat (does Wilde know who he is or has Lowe perhaps not introduced them yet). I thought he was going to be the one bringing in players, while Jan the Man did the coaching, but it seems its only Lowe and Jan involved (oh sorry forgot the lap dog as well), and not Wotte.

 

An interesting observation. It was rumoured that it was Wotte that was wanted by Lowe originally if I recall, but as you say, he seems to have faded into the background. And then it appears to be Hockaday who also has some influence in the scheme of things too. What exactly is Wotte's role? Anybody able to fill us in on the hierarchy?

[Professor]

Trying to ignore the ramblings of the resident troll, but this nonsense about the golden duo. What does Wotte do (if you see what I mean)? Other than manage the reserves his role is rather minor, yet originally he was touted as a major part of the revoluiion. No mention of him in Wilde's poodle parlour chit chat (does Wilde know who he is or has Lowe perhaps not introduced them yet). I thought he was going to be the one bringing in players, while Jan the Man did the coaching, but it seems its only Lowe and Jan involved (oh sorry forgot the lap dog as well), and not Wotte.

Obviously Vectis was not making a geniuine enquiry as this was just another attempt to rubbish the coaches, presumably for no good reason other than who appointed them. However, for the benefit of those with more open minds, here is an observation from just behind the technical area at the SMS at the Blackpool game. Throughout the game Woote was close at hand to JP, several times you could see them consulting together, and consulting before the substitutions. Woote appeared to be acting like an assistant coach, which, when he was appointed as Academy Director, is what he said he would be doing.

[St Paul]

Obviously Vectis was not making a geniuine enquiry as this was just another attempt to rubbish the coaches, presumably for no good reason other than who appointed them. However, for the benefit of those with more open minds, here is an observation from just behind the technical area at the SMS at the Blackpool game. Throughout the game Woote was close at hand to JP, several times you could see them consulting together, and consulting before the substitutions. Woote appeared to be acting like an assistant coach, which, when he was appointed as Academy Director, is what he said he would be doing.

 

 

I have an open mind, and I thought the Manager and his coaches were poor against Blackpool.

[Professor]

I have an open mind, and I thought the Manager and his coaches were poor against Blackpool.

I thought the defence was poor against Blackpool but this is straying a bit far for a thread on Wilde's interview and the reference to him not referring to Mark Woote.

[Bon Call Night]

No. I'm a perfectionist and he falls very far short of the mark.

 

It was Lowe who holed the ship in the first place, to use another nautical metaphor. Cultivating the youth was solely down to not being able to afford paying the wages of those players capable enough of earning decent wages as a result of him holing the ship. And as for the total football, is that what we played against such mighty and illustrious opposition such as Blackpool?

 

I didn't think much of it. It seems a bit hit and miss to me.

 

I am so glad we have supporters like you willing to belittle the efforts after one bad result.

 

As for Lowe, I agree as skipper of the ship he has to take overall responsibility. However, his first officer who was on the bridge steering and the crew who should have been more than capable of plugging the hole all chose to ignore the problem and keep sailing into deeper waters and IMO were as much to blame.

 

With the yougsters now we are going to be hit and miss, unfortunately Lallana misses cost us the game against Blackpool, we created the chances and did not take them. A few had a bad day at the office granted but again kids are not going to be as consistent as the seasoned pros. I would however take a gallon of their passion and commitment against the teaspoon offered by the relegation side.

 

Until a PROPER offer is on the table, we have Lowe and Wilde. So we have to make do. The people who are really hurting us now are the stay away fans who for either petty social reasons or because they are no more than Premiership hangers on, do not turn up. They are not hurting Lowe or Wilde they are hurting the club they purport to love so much.

 

Perhaps they should go into the echo and explain their reasons and be crossed examined to show them up for the idiots they are.

[um pahars]

The people who are really hurting us now are the stay away fans who for either petty social reasons or because they are no more than Premiership hangers on, do not turn up. They are not hurting Lowe or Wilde they are hurting the club they purport to love so much.

 

Perhaps they should go into the echo and explain their reasons and be crossed examined to show them up for the idiots they are.

 

Considering there is a Branfoot thread on here, then maybe it is worth asking what you thought of the stayways at that time, who ultimately forced the board to sack Branfoot??

 

Whilst many just stayed away because the football was appalling, many also stayed away in protest, a protest which ultimately worked with Branfoot being removed??

 

Those idiots would claim that the pain and sacrifice was ultimately price worth paying.

[Professor]

Considering there is a Branfoot thread on here, then maybe it is worth asking what you thought of the stayways at that time, who ultimately forced the board to sack Branfoot??

 

Whilst many just stayed away because the football was appalling, many also stayed away in protest, a protest which ultimately worked with Branfoot being removed??

 

Those idiots would claim that the pain and sacrifice was ultimately price worth paying.

My recollection is that the board came to the same conclusion as most other followers of the Saints, including the press, and that Branfoot was sacked, not because of gates at The Dell, but because of his failings as manager, the club was threatened with relegation.

[70's Mike]

Obviously Vectis was not making a geniuine enquiry as this was just another attempt to rubbish the coaches, presumably for no good reason other than who appointed them. However, for the benefit of those with more open minds, here is an observation from just behind the technical area at the SMS at the Blackpool game. Throughout the game Woote was close at hand to JP, several times you could see them consulting together, and consulting before the substitutions. Woote appeared to be acting like an assistant coach, which, when he was appointed as Academy Director, is what he said he would be doing.

 

God help us if Woote came up with the tactics after the subs against Blackpool.

Losing 1 nil at home , bring on John drop Dmg back ans Lallana even further back.

[Wade Garrett]

My recollection is that the board came to the same conclusion as most other followers of the Saints, including the press, and that Branfoot was sacked, not because of gates at The Dell, but because of his failings as manager, the club was threatened with relegation.

 

Wrong. He was sacked because gates were dwindling. If we were in the same position but playing to sell-out crowds every week he would have kept his job.

 

The problem we have now is that Lowe and Wilde are hardly going to sack themselves when gates go down.

[Weston Saint]

I find a lot of what is posted here about staying away a bit silly or maybe naive.

 

If results are poor and the team is not playing decent football the Manager gets the blame and is replaced by one who we hope will turn the team and results around.

 

We as supporters are perhaps more fickle that the employer who wants to give his Manager a chance. We stay away not in protest against the Manager himself (although some might say openly that is the reason) but because the play is so poor. It is our staying away that is the cataylse for the club to take action a little earlier than it might if gates were not affected But action they would have to take in time anyway.

 

But with Lowe and Wilde if results are poor and it is down to their choice of Manager and their plan to sell the best players what can be achieved? If they went who is there to come in and relace them (other that a rich benifactor). How could it be done differently without money (and that is our problem at present)

 

Staying away because the team is poor and not value for money is a valid reason and may result in a change in personel and the promise of better management and results. Staying away because you do not like Lowe & Wilde is not, in my opinion a valid reason or helpful becasue there is not a viable alternative.

 

Decent gates will help finances. Helping finances will provide more stability. More stability will allow for better planning and the money to back it up.

 

Wilde and Lowe are in it to protect their money. Nothing wrong with that. But they both have a healthy respect for SFC to want to see it succeed.

 

Yes there is an amount of ego involved. That is no different in any club chairman.

 

Here endeth the Sunday night ramblings of a frustrated but realistic Weston Saint!

[Totton Red]

I find a lot of what is posted here about staying away a bit silly or maybe naive.

 

If results are poor and the team is not playing decent football the Manager gets the blame and is replaced by one who we hope will turn the team and results around.

 

We as supporters are perhaps more fickle that the employer who wants to give his Manager a chance. We stay away not in protest against the Manager himself (although some might say openly that is the reason) but because the play is so poor. It is our staying away that is the cataylse for the club to take action a little earlier than it might if gates were not affected But action they would have to take in time anyway.

 

But with Lowe and Wilde if results are poor and it is down to their choice of Manager and their plan to sell the best players what can be achieved? If they went who is there to come in and relace them (other that a rich benifactor). How could it be done differently without money (and that is our problem at present)

 

Staying away because the team is poor and not value for money is a valid reason and may result in a change in personel and the promise of better management and results. Staying away because you do not like Lowe & Wilde is not, in my opinion a valid reason or helpful becasue there is not a viable alternative.

 

Decent gates will help finances. Helping finances will provide more stability. More stability will allow for better planning and the money to back it up.

 

Wilde and Lowe are in it to protect their money. Nothing wrong with that. But they both have a healthy respect for SFC to want to see it succeed.

 

Yes there is an amount of ego involved. That is no different in any club chairman.

 

Here endeth the Sunday night ramblings of a frustrated but realistic Weston Saint!

 

Who are you to question why a fan may stay away?

[Weston Saint]

Who are you to question why a fan may stay away?

 

:smt102

[Wes Tender]

I am so glad we have supporters like you willing to belittle the efforts after one bad result.

 

 

I was feeding the resident troll, or didn't that occur to you?

 

And as the latest posts of the thread conclude, anybody who decides to stay away, whatever their reasons is perfectly entitled to do so. I am still attending each home match, but as I have not renewed my ST, I reserve the right to change my mind about my attendance at any time if I so wish.

 

Agreed that we have no alternative to Lowe and Wilde at present, but that does not prevent many of us praying that the two of them will depart sooner rather than later.

[Sundance Beast]

Who are you to question why a fan may stay away?

 

'Ask an impertinent question, and you are on the way to a pertinent answer'.

 

Don't try to avoid debate by getting all moralistic. Have you started to post on behalf of (John) Wes(ley) Tender?

[Red and White Army]

I was feeding the resident troll, or didn't that occur to you?

 

You are the resident troll.

[um pahars]

ho is there to come in and relace them (other that a rich benifactor). How could it be done differently without money (and that is our problem at present)

 

Sorry Ron, but I think you're being a bit naive here if you think the only people who can save us or run the show are Lowe & Wilde (what happens when they do eventually go, does the Club fold or do we appoint someone else? Maybe we have to make do with Wilde JR and Lowe the II in some sort of hereditary dynasty!!!!).

 

The very fact that both of them failed whilst on the bridge would suggest to me that there might well be others out there who could do a competent job.

 

One thing that was evident form those Runnymede meetings was that the larger shareholders never once considered going outside of their cosy cabal to get the best man for the job. Instead they were too busy carving up the jobs for themselves (Lowe as DOF and Wilde as Chairman, problem was neither would work with each other back then!!!!!! - how times change).

 

And as for how it could be done differently, then once again there are many ways of skinning a cat.

 

A fine example would be the sacking of Pearson and the appointment of JP and the coaching structure that surrounds him.

 

I'm not saying one is better than the other (that's another debate for another day), just giving one example that different strategies can and are being employed and those who make those choices will be resopnsible for them (there should be no hiding behind the "we had no choice" excuse card).

 

Money is tight and will almost definitely influence every decision, but there are a number of footballing things that could be done differently.

Edited 8 September, 2008 by um pahars

[Wes Tender]

You are the resident troll.

 

Read up the meaning of troll, as you don't appear to understand it. I always try to enter into debate on all sorts of subjects and sometimes I ruffle a few feathers as a result. I've obviously ruffled yours somewhere along the line, so you have resorted to name calling.

 

Post your definition of troll here and substantiate your opinion with examples, or withdraw it.

[Saint Fan CaM]

I'm sorry that Lowe steadying the ship, cultivating youth and bringing total football + the golden duo to the mickey mouse is not good enough for you.

 

Err...golden duo!?!?! Please remind us how many games Wotte has managed to win with his pretty experienced reserve side? I just hope the youngsters in the squad don't get too used to losing games - all this total football is fine and dandy, but when is the winning mentality going to be undermined because the results are awful?

[Bon Call Night]

Considering there is a Branfoot thread on here, then maybe it is worth asking what you thought of the stayways at that time, who ultimately forced the board to sack Branfoot??

 

Whilst many just stayed away because the football was appalling, many also stayed away in protest, a protest which ultimately worked with Branfoot being removed??

 

Those idiots would claim that the pain and sacrifice was ultimately price worth paying.

 

I do not deny that fan pressure may have had something to do with it, but it was more likely the continuing poor performances on the pitch, dropping our best players and an ineptitude for football management at the top level. Even our board would have spotted that.

 

No doubt those who protested in fanzines and outside the ground after games would also claim some success aswell.

 

Things were also very different back then - we had money, albeit minimal and were not in danger of going off the rails completely - although I believe the situation to be similar at the moment our overheads are far greater.

 

Somewhere there are 13-15000 missing fans that is around £250-300k per game, that may keep one or two of the more experienced players at the club. I think the approach is wrong to achieve want they want, and that is new owners. Surely a full stadium cheering on our inexperienced team would be a more attractive proposition - the latter can be improved through player aquisition the former needs to be there in the first place.

[Sundance Beast]

Read up the meaning of troll, as you don't appear to understand it. I always try to enter into debate on all sorts of subjects and sometimes I ruffle a few feathers as a result. I've obviously ruffled yours somewhere along the line, so you have resorted to name calling.

 

Post your definition of troll here and substantiate your opinion with examples, or withdraw it.

 

Most troll like Mr John Wesley and as usual just a tad pompous and boring.

 

A troll without a sense of the need to generate debate and adopt the odd shock tactic will induce on the forum a state of narcolepsy.

 

'Read up the meaning of troll' ? You sad, sad little scandinavian dwarf drawing his bait along the water as he sits on his little friendless toadstool.

[ItchenRob]

Remind me what one of the main points of the £5 subscription was !

[Wes Tender]

Most troll like Mr John Wesley and as usual just a tad pompous and boring.

 

A troll without a sense of the need to generate debate and adopt the odd shock tactic will induce on the forum a state of narcolepsy.

 

'Read up the meaning of troll' ? You sad, sad little scandinavian dwarf drawing his bait along the water as he sits on his little friendless toadstool.

 

Decided that Red and White Army couldn't respond on his own behalf, Sundance? Who rattled your cage? As you seem to have taken it upon yourself to answer on his behalf, I'd ask you to trawl through my posts and put up examples of where I have deliberately trolled on here, but as it appears that you yourself do not know the meaning of troll as it applies to internet forums, it would be a waste of everybodys' time. But just to give you a little hint of its meaning, what you just did by posting a response to me is trolling.

 

And try to be a bit more original with your insults. Nobody is in the least bothered that you have a tendency to suffer from narcolepsy any more than they care about your verbal diarrhea.

 

Pompous and boring? I learned form the master. You have Gold medals in the artform.

 

And I make it that you only have one more post for today, so make it a good one, you cheapskate.

[Weston Saint]

Remind me what one of the main points of the £5 subscription was !

 

I am sure Mr Sundance Beast would love to register but to register means a financial transaction and a financial transaction means identifying your real self by credit card, paypal account or cheque.

 

Mind you he could send a fiver in the post to Steve Grant under the name of SB if he does not trust the owners to keep his identity safe as they are bound to do anyway.