Thoughts of Wilde Part II

[Weston Saint]

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.

 

Steve, I based my comments on the assumption that we could not go on affording Pearson or the players he wanted to back up his methods/progress.

 

We had to cut our cloth as you readily have agreed in the past and now. What I consider is that given the state of the club no one else could come in and deal with it any different. Others toyed with the idea but even Crouch seems to have grudgingly accepted the inevitable.

 

Once the club is a "going concern" again I would expect there to be alternatives and at that stage new men and ideas may be the way forward.

 

My point really was that staying away to spite Lowe and Wilde is not the answer. It damages the only viable way we have of mounting some sort of recovery financially.

 

Staying away for economic or other social reasons is a different matter as that, I assume, would happen no matter who was in the board room.

 

All in my naive opinion of course and I did say it was Sunday night ramblings

[Frank's cousin]

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.

 

I dont think anyone or even Ron is of the opinion that there is no one better equiped to deal with our situation. but its perhaps unrealistic to expect these guys to 'oust themselves' when they are concerned about the investment that have in the club. Therefore as fans we have two choices, whinge and moan and vent our spleens about them, their past and what they seem to be doing at moment thus digging up old ground and never presenting a positive front, or get behind the plan. Think we also need to careful how we phrae things as there are plenty who take things at face value and this in turn simply enhances the negative - eg, I dont recall Pearson being sacked - which would have been a negative mark against the cards of both of them, he simply did not have his contract renewed as they powers chose to try a cheaper and some would argue perhaps more realistic approach given our finances - I am sure you know the difference, but its the sort of thing that does influence some.

 

My biggest question mark has always been WHY, they continue to WANT to be involved. If its purely to SAVE their investment, then I am sure they would simply stick someone with a proven record of rescuing companies in the crap. I think there is more to it, and its niot simply ego, which is a simple naive stick that comes out when there is no explanation we can think of.

[um pahars]

Steve, I based my comments on the assumption that we could not go on affording Pearson or the players he wanted to back up his methods/progress.

 

We had to cut our cloth as you readily have agreed in the past and now. What I consider is that given the state of the club no one else could come in and deal with it any different.

 

I think you've been sold a dummy if you think either Pearson's wages or his requirements were the reason for letting him go.

 

Pearson was acutely aware of the financial pressures at the Club and after speaking to him at length down at Central Hall he was more than aware that the summer would mean a mass exodus of the higher earners (and anyone who would command a fee), with not much money being spent on player purchases.

 

After meeting with Lowe he was of the mind that he could work within the financial constraints and also felt that Lowe wanted him (hence when he went on holiday he thought everything was hunky dory).

 

Lowe decided to go with the revolutionary coaching set up not as a financial necessity, but because he felt that was the best way forward. People may not agree with it, but at the end of the day Lowe is in the hot seat and he made that call.

 

Of course we couldn't afford Keegan and his shopping list, but the neither was the revolutionary coaching set up the only option available.

 

Lowe made that call and he will have to be judged on it.

 

My point really was that staying away to spite Lowe and Wilde is not the answer. It damages the only viable way we have of mounting some sort of recovery financially.

 

It may not be the answer, but I'm sure that for some people they have opted to do just that.

 

When my uncle picked me up from Heathrow the other day I asked him what our performances had been like. HIs response was "I don't know, I haven't gone to any matches as I just can't stand the idea of giving Lowe my money".

 

Irrational, stupid, naive, damaging or whatever you want to call it, you can't get away from the fact that some people (and it may be a minority) feel this way.

 

Of course last seasons debacle and this seasons luke warm start (along with player sales) may also be a factor, but in these hard times, sadly Lowe is as divisive a figure as he was when we first went down during his tenure.

 

Will my uncle come back when we are climbing the league? I don't know, but you can't ignore that in the absence of success on the pitch Lowe is not a unifying figure off of it.

[NickG]

I think you've been sold a dummy if you think either Pearson's wages or his requirements were the reason for letting him go.

 

Pearson was acutely aware of the financial pressures at the Club and after speaking to him at length down at Central Hall he was more than aware that the summer would mean a mass exodus of the higher earners (and anyone who would command a fee), with not much money being spent on player purchases.

 

After meeting with Lowe he was of the mind that he could work within the financial constraints and also felt that Lowe wanted him (hence when he went on holiday he thought everything was hunky dory).

 

Lowe decided to go with the revolutionary coaching set up not as a financial necessity, but because he felt that was the best way forward. People may not agree with it, but at the end of the day Lowe is in the hot seat and he made that call.

 

Of course we couldn't afford Keegan and his shopping list, but the neither was the revolutionary coaching set up the only option available.

 

Lowe made that call and he will have to be judged on it.

 

 

 

It may not be the answer, but I'm sure that for some people they have opted to do just that.

 

When my uncle picked me up from Heathrow the other day I asked him what our performances had been like. HIs response was "I don't know, I haven't gone to any matches as I just can't stand the idea of giving Lowe my money".

 

Irrational, stupid, naive, damaging or whatever you want to call it, you can't get away from the fact that some people (and it may be a minority) feel this way.

 

Of course last seasons debacle and this seasons luke warm start (along with player sales) may also be a factor, but in these hard times, sadly Lowe is as divisive a figure as he was when we first went down during his tenure.

 

Will my uncle come back when we are climbing the league? I don't know, but you can't ignore that in the absence of success on the pitch Lowe is not a unifying figure off of it.

 

obviously don't know who he is but my guess us he would.

[Sundance Beast]

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.

 

Ron, most perceptive as usual. If banks and government agencies can lose your personal details despite the DPA, can you trust Baj not to leave his laptop in Starbucks? Considering some of the private messages I've had from this character in the past he would probably try to trace my DNA from any enclosed fiver and in any event and through personal choice I certainly would not want to support any organisation where he his responsible for customer service. Baj is it still your 'undemocratic' forum and you'll cry if you want to?

 

Regards

SB

[Wes Tender]

Ron, most perceptive as usual. If banks and government agencies can lose your personal details despite the DPA, can you trust Baj not to leave his laptop in Starbucks? Considering some of the private messages I've had from this character in the past he would probably try to trace my DNA from any enclosed fiver and in any event and through personal choice I certainly would not want to support any organisation where he his responsible for customer service. Baj is it still your 'undemocratic' forum and you'll cry if you want to?

 

Regards

SB

 

All this blether. Why can't you just admit it; you're a tightwad.

[Sundance Beast]

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.

 

The meaning of troll as it applies to internet forums? To troll Wes is to drag a line with bait through the water and hope for a bite so I assume the internet has adopted this term for asking searching questions in the hope of generating some reaction and debate a.k.a., a bite. Its not unlike using the word web to describe the worldwide coverage of the internet. Or did the world of natural history adopt it thinking is was an ideal world to describe a spider's residence?

 

Now admittedly, your trolling is not obvious but your pompous and pseudo-intellectual responses usually generates a bite for those who wish this forum was returned to its original home of lively and admittedly at times anarchic debate. If nothing else it was entertaining but it's a concern posters like you are now strangling the life out of the place like internet forum knotweed.

 

In future if you do wish me to comment on a 'personal' reply to a post then can I suggest you use the pm system instead of boring the rest of us with your 'cleverness'.

 

BTW if you would like to borrow my Immodium let me know. Although, in your case prevention may be better than the cure. You have unlimited posts remaining today please make one of them a good one.

 

Regards and apologies for not being able to reply using the pm system but Baj doesn't believe a forum is a place for democracy.

[Bon Call Night]

I think you've been sold a dummy if you think either Pearson's wages or his requirements were the reason for letting him go.

 

Pearson was acutely aware of the financial pressures at the Club and after speaking to him at length down at Central Hall he was more than aware that the summer would mean a mass exodus of the higher earners (and anyone who would command a fee), with not much money being spent on player purchases.

 

After meeting with Lowe he was of the mind that he could work within the financial constraints and also felt that Lowe wanted him (hence when he went on holiday he thought everything was hunky dory).

 

Lowe decided to go with the revolutionary coaching set up not as a financial necessity, but because he felt that was the best way forward. People may not agree with it, but at the end of the day Lowe is in the hot seat and he made that call.

 

Of course we couldn't afford Keegan and his shopping list, but the neither was the revolutionary coaching set up the only option available.

 

Lowe made that call and he will have to be judged on it.

 

 

 

It may not be the answer, but I'm sure that for some people they have opted to do just that.

 

When my uncle picked me up from Heathrow the other day I asked him what our performances had been like. HIs response was "I don't know, I haven't gone to any matches as I just can't stand the idea of giving Lowe my money".

 

Irrational, stupid, naive, damaging or whatever you want to call it, you can't get away from the fact that some people (and it may be a minority) feel this way.

 

Of course last seasons debacle and this seasons luke warm start (along with player sales) may also be a factor, but in these hard times, sadly Lowe is as divisive a figure as he was when we first went down during his tenure.

 

Will my uncle come back when we are climbing the league? I don't know, but you can't ignore that in the absence of success on the pitch Lowe is not a unifying figure off of it.

 

 

I am sure you believe this Steve, but why do you have problems accepting Lowe's version of events? It is this sort of post where comments are used from one side to twist the facts or comments on the other side.

 

We do not know what Pearson's demands were when he got into that office, we don't know whether he was willing to work with the youth at the club so why try and inflate the comment he made (and of course only Lowe roles out preprepared lines for the press) to belittle Lowe's comments.

 

This sort of thing is the very essence of why we have such a divided fan base, clever wordsmiths like yourself manipulating comments and information.

 

I am not saying you have to accept all that is said as fact but neither can you dismiss it all as fiction if it does not agree with what you want.

[Red and White Army]

I am sure you believe this Steve, but why do you have problems accepting Lowe's version of events?

 

Lowe has never said we let go of Pearson because he cost too much.

 

What he did say was the Dutch Duo's wages combined were less than Pearson's. In my view, that was simply a statement to head off people like dumb pahars complaining Lowe was ruining the club and bankrupting it.

 

Lowe got rid of Pearson because he wanted the Dutch Duo more, and he could bring them in without any financial hardship of paying more wages. That is all there is to it in my view.

 

dumb pahars is just stirring up and insinuating Lowe said he got rid of them for wages, as he has done from the moment this was announced.

[70's Mike]

Lowe has never said we let go of Pearson because he cost too much.

 

What he did say was the Dutch Duo's wages combined were less than Pearson's. In my view, that was simply a statement to head off people like dumb pahars complaining Lowe was ruining the club and bankrupting it.

 

Lowe got rid of Pearson because he wanted the Dutch Duo more, and he could bring them in without any financial hardship of paying more wages. That is all there is to it in my view.

 

dumb pahars is just stirring up and insinuating Lowe said he got rid of them for wages, as he has done from the moment this was announced.

 

 

may be true but the fact appears to be that people of southampton , not 100% committed to the club, believe Lowe is the devil incarnate.

 

Only my opinion

[Bon Call Night]

Lowe has never said we let go of Pearson because he cost too much.

 

What he did say was the Dutch Duo's wages combined were less than Pearson's. In my view, that was simply a statement to head off people like dumb pahars complaining Lowe was ruining the club and bankrupting it.

 

Lowe got rid of Pearson because he wanted the Dutch Duo more, and he could bring them in without any financial hardship of paying more wages. That is all there is to it in my view.

 

dumb pahars is just stirring up and insinuating Lowe said he got rid of them for wages, as he has done from the moment this was announced.

 

Your view may be right, but again statements are taken out of context and twisted to fit a side of the arguement - your approach is no better than Steve's.

 

Commenting and discussing facts is fine but making them up as some do on here, taking them out of context or indeed dragging up something Lowe said 5 years ago to couteract anything said today is ridiculous.

 

I am not sure how right now, but we need to get the missing 10k through the gates on a Saturday this will be the best way of getting our club back on an even keel.

[Red and White Army]

Your view may be right, but again statements are taken out of context and twisted to fit a side of the arguement - your approach is no better than Steve's.

 

Exactly what way am I twisting the argument?

 

I am simply untwisting the webs of deceit others are spinning.

[Long Shot]

I am sure you believe this Steve, but why do you have problems accepting Lowe's version of events? It is this sort of post where comments are used from one side to twist the facts or comments on the other side.

 

We do not know what Pearson's demands were when he got into that office, we don't know whether he was willing to work with the youth at the club so why try and inflate the comment he made (and of course only Lowe roles out preprepared lines for the press) to belittle Lowe's comments.

 

This sort of thing is the very essence of why we have such a divided fan base, clever wordsmiths like yourself manipulating comments and information.

 

I am not saying you have to accept all that is said as fact but neither can you dismiss it all as fiction if it does not agree with what you want.

 

 

I think it a bit rich to accuse Um Pahars of manipulating comments and information. To me his call is usually spot on. If you want to talk about misinformation then perhaps you too should be careful. For your information Pearson was given a 18 month rolling contract when he joined us with a window in the summer for both sides to withdraw (which Lowe took advantage of), so technically his contract was not "not renewed" as you put it.

 

The reason Pearson was shown the door had nothing to do with finance - the decision was both political (he was a LM/LC appointment) and idealogical (JP fitted into the total football/use the young'uns concept while also conveniently accepting Lowe as DoF).

[aintforever]

Exactly what way am I twisting the argument?

 

I am simply untwisting the webs of deceit others are spinning.

 

Lowe did use cost as one of the reasons for sacking Pearson, if you think he mentioned their salary for any other reason you must be extremely nieve. I don't remember him mentioning other staff's salaries before.

[Red and White Army]

Lowe did use cost as one of the reasons for sacking Pearson, if you think he mentioned their salary for any other reason you must be extremely nieve.

 

From this, I can only surmise you are too stupid to be able to read properly.

[forever a red and white]

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.

 

who has lost three of our four league games...

[aintforever]

From this, I can only surmise you are too stupid to be able to read properly.

 

And you are obviously 12 years old.

[Bon Call Night]

I think it a bit rich to accuse Um Pahars of manipulating comments and information. To me his call is usually spot on. If you want to talk about misinformation then perhaps you too should be careful. For your information Pearson was given a 18 month rolling contract when he joined us with a window in the summer for both sides to withdraw (which Lowe took advantage of), so technically his contract was not "not renewed" as you put it.

 

The reason Pearson was shown the door had nothing to do with finance - the decision was both political (he was a LM/LC appointment) and idealogical (JP fitted into the total football/use the young'uns concept while also conveniently accepting Lowe as DoF).

 

Again you prove my point, why do you assume he is so spot on? Because his information supports his arguement? What I am saying is that we do not know the context of the information and we only have published comments from the press. Now they don't twist anything do they?

 

Not sure where you got the 18 month information from, don't know if it is correct or not, I will give you the benefit of any doubt - I however made no comment about his contract and whether or not is was renewed, opted out of etc. Do you not think that the comments of Lowe do not imply a financial aspect to this? Who wanted total football, I suspect that JP wanted it but I do not know and am not going to enter in to a pointless arguement without any real facts, I'll say JP, you said it was Lowe and it was for political reasons. Again those are assumptions that through this forum are now being spouted as facts and something Steve alludes to in his posts. I did not mention the renewing of Pearson's contract and in any event might it have been because he didn't really get the results? Another debate maybe.

 

It is again exactly posts like this which other pick up on, theory becomes speculation and speculation becomes fact. Your final paragraph is pure theory and speculation. Some of which I agree with, but I am not going to use it as a stick to criticise Lowe, Crouch, Pearson or anyone else, the club does not need that it needs bums on seats bringing money through the turnstiles.

 

Exactly what way am I twisting the argument?

 

I am simply untwisting the webs of deceit others are spinning.

 

"Lowe got rid of Pearson because he wanted the Dutch Duo more, and he could bring them in without any financial hardship of paying more wages. That is all there is to it in my view."

 

We really do not know why Pearson was not kept on, we do not know what conversations were had, there may have been a total differing of opinion on why and who we should keep some of the more experienced players and/or why or who we should promote the youngsters.

 

Pearson may have even walked due to a clash of personalities, or Lowe may have not wanted him for the same reason.

 

Like you, it is all speculation and opinion and not fact. These type of discussions, probably happening on other forums too, are ripping the fan base apart and is hurting the club financially.

 

Regardless of who is in charge, and I would love an investor to come in, nobody can make big changes, big signings or take drastic forwards steps until we have money in the bank. Continual posturing from Steve and yourself, to take an example of both sides, will continue to stress the fault line between the fans. As very little is based on true hard facts it is all very destructive.

[up and away]

I think it a bit rich to accuse Um Pahars of manipulating comments and information. To me his call is usually spot on. If you want to talk about misinformation then perhaps you too should be careful. For your information Pearson was given a 18 month rolling contract when he joined us with a window in the summer for both sides to withdraw (which Lowe took advantage of), so technically his contract was not "not renewed" as you put it.

 

The reason Pearson was shown the door had nothing to do with finance - the decision was both political (he was a LM/LC appointment) and idealogical (JP fitted into the total football/use the young'uns concept while also conveniently accepting Lowe as DoF).

 

Where do you get this crap from? What evidence do you have that the failure to keep Pearson was influenced by the fact that LM/LC picked him out? Just look at everything else that would have come up in the selection criteria and it is easy to see why the decision was made without you deciding to make up others.

 

The overriding point will be based upon integrating and utilising the assets we have in the youth. This is the path that Lowe and Wilde had decided upon as being the one with only logical chance of of possibly getting us out of this mess. Then you have to factor in which of the candidates has the best chance of keeping us in the division. The double Dutch have to be seen in this respect as a risk, but was Pearson that much better? As much as I like Pearson and always had the feeling he would do the job, there was not a lot of hard evidence to back that up. His record in the games with us were poor, take away all those loan signings and senior squad members and you soon come to the conclusion we were nailed on for relegation.

 

When you have come to a decision based upon those two points, then find the double Dutch are 1/3 cheaper than Pearson, it is just another indicator to this direction. Keeping Pearson would have been the easy way out and politically a winner in so many ways.

[70's Mike]

Where do you get this crap from? What evidence do you have that the failure to keep Pearson was influenced by the fact that LM/LC picked him out? Just look at everything else that would have come up in the selection criteria and it is easy to see why the decision was made without you deciding to make up others.

 

The overriding point will be based upon integrating and utilising the assets we have in the youth. This is the path that Lowe and Wilde had decided upon as being the one with only logical chance of of possibly getting us out of this mess. Then you have to factor in which of the candidates has the best chance of keeping us in the division. The double Dutch have to be seen in this respect as a risk, but was Pearson that much better? As much as I like Pearson and always had the feeling he would do the job, there was not a lot of hard evidence to back that up. His record in the games with us were poor, take away all those loan signings and senior squad members and you soon come to the conclusion we were nailed on for relegation.

 

When you have come to a decision based upon those two points, then find the double Dutch are 1/3 cheaper than Pearson, it is just another indicator to this direction. Keeping Pearson would have been the easy way out and politically a winner in so many ways.

 

Agree with the Dutch being part of a strategy and accept that was necessary change for us.

But struggle to believe the Salary differential quoted by you.

[Professor]

Its interesting that Michael Wilde goes public with very straightforward responses to a set of direct questions, but for some people the debate has to move towards whether he is being honest in his answers. SFC is not some Eastern European state during the cold war, where information has to be manipulated to keep the leaders in power. Wilde and Lowe do not depend on the support of the fans to run the club. Supportive fans are a factor in the financial viability of the team, but that is as far as it goes. The board has no need to lie to the public, yet some people dismiss almost everything they have said.

 

For his interview, MW had advance notice of the questions so if anything he felt should not be answered he was able to exclude, which should add to the confidence that what he did say was honest.

The intereswt a few people continue to show towards our briefly-in-post-ex-manager, has been demonstrated on a number of other threads, and is now entirely irrelevant to SFC, but it is a fact that statements were made by the club at the time. Why not just move on.

[Wade Garrett]

Its interesting that Michael Wilde goes public with very straightforward responses to a set of direct questions, but for some people the debate has to move towards whether he is being honest in his answers. SFC is not some Eastern European state during the cold war, where information has to be manipulated to keep the leaders in power. Wilde and Lowe do not depend on the support of the fans to run the club. Supportive fans are a factor in the financial viability of the team, but that is as far as it goes. The board has no need to lie to the public, yet some people dismiss almost everything they have said.

 

For his interview, MW had advance notice of the questions so if anything he felt should not be answered he was able to exclude, which should add to the confidence that what he did say was honest.

The intereswt a few people continue to show towards our briefly-in-post-ex-manager, has been demonstrated on a number of other threads, and is now entirely irrelevant to SFC, but it is a fact that statements were made by the club at the time. Why not just move on.

 

 

So you don't think he evaded any questions then?

[Wes Tender]

The meaning of troll as it applies to internet forums? To troll Wes is to drag a line with bait through the water and hope for a bite so I assume the internet has adopted this term for asking searching questions in the hope of generating some reaction and debate a.k.a., a bite. Its not unlike using the word web to describe the worldwide coverage of the internet. Or did the world of natural history adopt it thinking is was an ideal world to describe a spider's residence?

 

Seemingly you know the meaning of the word troll and hopefully Red and White will have read it too and if he still believes that I am a troll, will furnish examples as requested. As you admit below, you cannot do so.

 

Now admittedly, your trolling is not obvious but your pompous and pseudo-intellectual responses usually generates a bite for those who wish this forum was returned to its original home of lively and admittedly at times anarchic debate.

 

You yearn for Keith's forum, eh? When you posted under a different name; Flashman, wasn't it? And do you consider yourself as an arbiter of what constitutes lively debate? Bit pompous if you do.

 

If nothing else it was entertaining but it's a concern posters like you are now strangling the life out of the place like internet forum knotweed.

 

Is that why you won't part with the wonga, eh? Because of lil ole me?

 

In future if you do wish me to comment on a 'personal' reply to a post then can I suggest you use the pm system instead of boring the rest of us with your 'cleverness'.

 

.As you cannot use the PM system yourself, then please don't bore everybody by publishing your little personal brickbats in the open yourself. Hypocrite.

 

BTW if you would like to borrow my Immodium let me know. Although, in your case prevention may be better than the cure. You have unlimited posts remaining today please make one of them a good one.

 

Your need of the Immodium is far greater than mine. Buy yours at Makro by the case, eh?

 

Regards and apologies for not being able to reply using the pm system but Baj doesn't believe a forum is a place for democracy.

 

Baj is one who has paid some of his own money to ensure that this forum continues to exist. Therefore in my eyes he can do what he likes with it. If you don't like it, or the way that it is run, start your own forum.

 

PS comments in green, as I know how sleepy the blue makes you.

[Wes Tender]

Wilde and Lowe do not depend on the support of the fans to run the club. Supportive fans are a factor in the financial viability of the team, but that is as far as it goes.

 

Just to take issue with this one part; Lowe and Wilde DO depend on the support of the fans to run the club. Supporters are a factor in the financial viability of the entire CLUB, not just the team.

 

If the club was in the Premiership and received plenty of money to keep going purely on the Sky revenue, which patently it could sustain at this level of expenditure, then the matches could be played behind closed doors in an empty stadium theoretically, making the income from the fans totally redundant. On that basis, your statement would hold water.

 

But it is not remotely like that. The revenue through the turnstiles and ST sales is vital to our survival until serious investment comes into the club. Therefore they do need our support to run the club and to pay nearly all of the running costs including players wages. Unless a certain average number of people attend the matches, debts will mount to the extent that administration will ensue eventually when the banks baulk at the losses.

 

Because of this, Wilde and Lowe know that they antagonise us at their and the club's peril.

[offix]

Wilde and Lowe do not depend on the support of the fans to run the club.

 

LOL. Very "professorial" statement! That's like saying that the CEO of General Motors doesn't need any customers to buy his cars.

You really are funny!

[70's Mike]

Its interesting that Michael Wilde goes public with very straightforward responses to a set of direct questions, but for some people the debate has to move towards whether he is being honest in his answers. SFC is not some Eastern European state during the cold war, where information has to be manipulated to keep the leaders in power. Wilde and Lowe do not depend on the support of the fans to run the club. Supportive fans are a factor in the financial viability of the team, but that is as far as it goes. The board has no need to lie to the public, yet some people dismiss almost everything they have said.

 

For his interview, MW had advance notice of the questions so if anything he felt should not be answered he was able to exclude, which should add to the confidence that what he did say was honest.

The intereswt a few people continue to show towards our briefly-in-post-ex-manager, has been demonstrated on a number of other threads, and is now entirely irrelevant to SFC, but it is a fact that statements were made by the club at the time. Why not just move on.

 

 

Your first paragraph just about sums up what is wrong and went wrong with Southampton Football Club.

That attitude comes from the top and , as shown by the gates so far this season, people cannot be bothered

[Professor]

So you don't think he evaded any questions then?

Yes, I think he did evade some questions, but I think that is better than giving dishonest answers and is why I think you can treat the answers to the questions he dealt with as being factual.

[Professor]

Just to take issue with this one part; Lowe and Wilde DO depend on the support of the fans to run the club. Supporters are a factor in the financial viability of the entire CLUB, not just the team.

I agree with this, which I don't believe is inconsistent with what I said.

[Professor]

LOL. Very "professorial" statement! That's like saying that the CEO of General Motors doesn't need any customers to buy his cars.

You really are funny!

Glad to provide amusement! Any time. But Offix has misread what I said.

I did say that the club depends on the fans as customers, but I was also pointing out that fans do not get to vote on who holds positions on the board. You can certainly take that further and say that if the decisions of the board reduce the number of customers and income falls, eventually the shareholders might act against the board, but it is the shareholders who have the power, not the fans. It is also true that some fans believe that they can use the economic power of the customer, through actions such as a boycott, to force a change of management, but for that to be true fans have to risk even more damage to the club they support, and no guarantee that things will ever be better.

[Wade Garrett]

Yes, I think he did evade some questions, but I think that is better than giving dishonest answers and is why I think you can treat the answers to the questions he dealt with as being factual.

 

Bit of a waste of time having a Q & A session if you aren't going to answer the questions. He strikes me as being as honest as your average politician.

[70's Mike]

Bit of a waste of time having a Q & A session if you aren't going to answer the questions. He strikes me as being as honest as your average politician.

 

 

and as devious

[um pahars]

Lowe has never said we let go of Pearson because he cost too much.

 

What he did say was the Dutch Duo's wages combined were less than Pearson's. In my view, that was simply a statement to head off people like dumb pahars complaining Lowe was ruining the club and bankrupting it.

 

Lowe got rid of Pearson because he wanted the Dutch Duo more, and he could bring them in without any financial hardship of paying more wages. That is all there is to it in my view.

 

dumb pahars is just stirring up and insinuating Lowe said he got rid of them for wages, as he has done from the moment this was announced.

 

I think you'll find that dumb pahars has from day one said this was nothing to do with money.

 

On the contrary, I have from day one said that this was solely a footballing decision.

 

Maybe if you learnt to read you would find that Weston Saint was saying that the appointment of the revolutionary coaching set up was due to financial reasons, whereas I have been arguing that it was solely for footballing reasons.

 

HTH.

Edited 9 September, 2008 by um pahars

[Bon Call Night]

Bit of a waste of time having a Q & A session if you aren't going to answer the questions. He strikes me as being as honest as your average politician.

 

FFS here we go again, someone thinks that he might have avoided some questions and we now believe the guy is being dishonest.

 

I think you will find that the echo clarified that there would be some questions he would be unable to answer due to market rules, the answers I read were pretty full and frank.

 

I do not expect the guy to openly criticise, Crouch, Lowe McEnemy or anyone else involved in the past as that would be unprofessional.

 

I just wish everyone would stop creating conspiracy theories.

[Professor]

Bit of a waste of time having a Q & A session if you aren't going to answer the questions. He strikes me as being as honest as your average politician.

But it wasn't a waste of time at all, was it. The questions Wilde did answer were about some of the challenging and controvesial issues that people on here, and in other forums, have been discussing. It gave us a good insight into what the board are doing. Sceptics may choose not to believe them, but some people will do that whatever the board says.

Surely Wade is not suggesting that if Wilde does a Q & A session, he should accept every question, including some of the out and out aggressively unpleasant and insulting ones that a few people here suggested. Realists need to be consistent as well.

[GreenTreeFrog]

 

[cut text]

 

I do not expect the guy to openly criticise, Crouch, Lowe McEnemy or anyone else involved in the past as that would be unprofessional.

 

I just wish everyone would stop creating conspiracy theories.

 

I agree with that.

 

It would also be at best unhelpful and at worst could actually damage the club. Why do some posters insist that we need to know all the ‘dirt’ of the past? Yes, Wilde criticised Lowe’s methods and ousted him a few years ago, but it does not follow that he must hate or resent him now.

 

I’m sure at the time he did think he could do things differently, bigger, bolder and better, but maybe once in power he realised running the club was a lot harder than he thought and he has learnt from that experience. It is possible that, although they may never be best mates, he now respects certain aspects of what Lowe can offer but still feels he can make a worthwhile contribution of his own. Along with his obvious business experience maybe he offers a bit of balance to Lowes 'extremes' and an alternative viewpoint in various discussions. Maybe they can work better for the club as a pair than they could individually. Brothers in arms!

[Wade Garrett]

FFS here we go again, someone thinks that he might have avoided some questions and we now believe the guy is being dishonest.

 

I think you will find that the echo clarified that there would be some questions he would be unable to answer due to market rules, the answers I read were pretty full and frank.

 

I do not expect the guy to openly criticise, Crouch, Lowe McEnemy or anyone else involved in the past as that would be unprofessional.

 

I just wish everyone would stop creating conspiracy theories.

 

You obviously didn't read the question that I put down then. You would have seen that he did avoid the question. I didn't ask anything to do with a takeover, the answer was not full and frank.

 

Where is the conspiracy theory there? I asked a question, he waffled like a politician without answering the question.

[Bon Call Night]

You obviously didn't read the question that I put down then. You would have seen that he did avoid the question. I didn't ask anything to do with a takeover, the answer was not full and frank.

 

Where is the conspiracy theory there? I asked a question, he waffled like a politician without answering the question.

 

I suspect he didn't give the answer you wanted or imparted the information your wanted - did you ask the right questions? I have re-read all the responses and find them consistent with the questions asked. I do not know who you are specifically so cannot comment uniquely.

 

Some of the answers were light on real information but they did answer the question.

[Wade Garrett]

I concur.Too many people have gone 'John Nada' over this.

 

 

 

And you,get over yourself.What did you honestly expect,a signed confession? Berk.

 

Delusions of grandeur already - non producer.

[Julian H. Cope]

Delusions of grandeur already - non producer.

 

Been there done that,got the T-shirt.In your face;)

[Sundance Beast]

 

Maybe if you learnt to read you would find that Weston Saint was saying that the appointment of the revolutionary coaching set up was due to financial reasons, whereas I have been arguing that it was solely for footballing reasons.

 

HTH.

 

And the actual rationale would be that it was done for a combination of financial and footballing reasons.

[Baj]

Several posts have had to be deleted from this thread after comments made by Offix.

 

Can I please remind everyone, that whilst we are all free to express an opinion, libellous material is still illegal and unless you have concrete references that you can prove during a post, please do drag this forum into any potential legal battles with those that you wish to slate.