What is it with the blame game?

[NickG]

Absolutely.

 

I find it staggering that people feel we have to dip into the same stagnant gene pool of shareholders and appoint a CEO/Chairman who failed so miserably last time around.

 

Why is he the only one who can save us (and WTF happens when he does decide to stand down given he is the only one able to do this job:rolleyes::rolleyes:).

 

there must be others as good -but fresh start, or better, but it for some reason they don't seem to be coming forward -however many times people post they don't like Lowe. We would all (with maybe one or two exceptions) be interested to see what someone like Salz would offer.

 

BUT, the shareholders, in their wisdom opt for the merry-go round. My gut feeling (appreciate many disagree) is that of those with tickets for the merry-go-round Lowe is the best option at the moment. I would rather others bought tickets but until they do I will support the club and try to keep as positive as I can about the club (as its meant to be pleasure/entertainment).

I supported Wilde and Hoos but that went wrong so am not the lowe luvvie the likes of Ottery make out (bought shares and met with Hoos to assist his last demise).

 

So where are Fulthorpe or Crouch buying shares?

 

Until then its my club not lowe's so will go every home game and not look or care who is in directors box.

 

Agree with other thread that the total non-acceptance of any post that doesn't slag Lowe off is getting boring and driving us away

[um pahars]

there must be others as good -but fresh start, or better, but it for some reason they don't seem to be coming forward

 

Paid CEO's don't normally come forward, you go out and recruit them!!!!!

 

Same with a Chairman. We never made any effort to look outside the usual suspects.

 

By all means have shareholder representation on the Board, but why did we not go outside the stagnant gene pool?????

[70's Mike]

Paid CEO's don't normally come forward, you go out and recruit them!!!!!

 

Same with a Chairman. We never made any effort to look outside the usual suspects.

 

By all means have shareholder representation on the Board, but why did we not go outside the stagnant gene pool?????

 

 

Easy UM

 

WE have always been a private company hiding behind PLC status for the benefit of the few

[voteforpedro]

However at this moment in time the only person who will see us out of this financial mess is Lowe. There is no alternative as chairman, there is no one with money who will buy the club, there is no one else who will have the backing of barclays. We are stuck with what we have got whether people like it or not. The fact is no amount of protesting will make Lowe leave as it means he will lose every penny he has put into the club.

 

I've read this from a lot of posters on here but I can't remember one of them ever explaining why?

 

Lowe is in power because Wilde had a panic attack, it is not because of his remarkable business recovery skills.

 

My explanation was: 'There is no alternative as chairman, there is no one with money who will buy the club, there is no one else who will have the backing of barclays.'

Are you suggesting that one of the other board members becomes chairman, if so which one and what do you think they will do differently?

[ottery st mary]

there must be others as good -but fresh start, or better, but it for some reason they don't seem to be coming forward -however many times people post they don't like Lowe. We would all (with maybe one or two exceptions) be interested to see what someone like Salz would offer.

 

BUT, the shareholders, in their wisdom opt for the merry-go round. My gut feeling (appreciate many disagree) is that of those with tickets for the merry-go-round Lowe is the best option at the moment. I would rather others bought tickets but until they do I will support the club and try to keep as positive as I can about the club (as its meant to be pleasure/entertainment).

I supported Wilde and Hoos but that went wrong so am not the lowe luvvie the likes of Ottery make out (bought shares and met with Hoos to assist his last demise).

 

So where are Fulthorpe or Crouch buying shares?

 

Until then its my club not lowe's so will go every home game and not look or care who is in directors box.

 

Agree with other thread that the total non-acceptance of any post that doesn't slag Lowe off is getting boring and driving us away

 

I mean no harm to your little group and generally enjoy the fun of the forum.

More importantly I enjoy being a Saints supporter and have done so since 57/58 season.

As regards you being a luvvie you little pixie,do not take it to heart as your friend nickh thinks I am a drunk just because I jokingly said I was on the cider. Every oppurtunity he gets he implies my posts are that of a drunk re Lowey and his horrendous stewardship of The Saints and every other company he has been involved in.....My opinion of course.

So in a similar way you and your group are not slow in throwing around names 9i do not drink to be honest....The very rare beer or wine...never cider)

and in some cases nasty comments about posters to suit your cause for good old Lowey.

 

If you are not a Lowey Luvvie, so what...Hopefully you are a genuine Saints supporter. But I can tell you some of the posters on here The Lowey Luvvies

have never supported Saints in their lives and will follow the failed businessman over the edge of the cliff.

The real concern is that as he takes Saints down they would not care a damn re the club or the team...Its all about their mate Lowey and that is a major concern to me.

 

So yes WHY Lowey again and why not any other reasonable businessman who should be appointed by the shareholders.

 

NickG.......Do you have a reasonable argument as to why LOWEY?

You or your group come out with the same statement he is the best and in anycase who else.......The proof,even with a bucketful of money in the Premier he was not a sucess and since then without money his skills have been shown up to be what they are...Non existent....The man is a failure in football and is slowly but surely ruining this club.

[Faz]

Paid CEO's don't normally come forward, you go out and recruit them!!!!!

 

Same with a Chairman. We never made any effort to look outside the usual suspects.

 

By all means have shareholder representation on the Board, but why did we not go outside the stagnant gene pool?????

 

 

Because the people who own the shares didn't want to. Between them they believe Lowe is the best option, and however much of a tizzy 20 anti-Lowe zealots work themselves into on here, it will not change that fact.

 

No-one has stepped up to the plate to buy shares and make a difference. Lowe and his cohort will not give the shares away, so we go on.

 

IMO the best way to get rid of Lowe is promotion. Or to make the club financially viable in this league so that it is attractive to an investor. Administration will like as not see him back.

[RinNY]

This is an internet forum, open for discussion of any topic relating to the club and how it is run. If you only like reading posts disussing the team, then perhaps you would be better off avoiding those relating to the board.

 

You make a good point in that I carelessly stated that we lost far more than we won under Pearson, whereas I meant to say that we drew and lost far more than we won, the point being that the results were very similar to those under Poortvliert, rather than far better as would be expected if your point about experienced managers and players had any validity.

 

Other than that: yes, quite likely Lowe will be gone in a few years. But a few years is a long time in football, and if we have to have 3 or 4 more years of constant harping on about Lowe ... well, I for one could do without it!

 

Blaming Lowe for all that has gone wrong at Saints is short-sighted and one-sided, and exposes prejudice rather than any serious thought about Saints' situation. You can be flip about it being the fault of the system if you like, but when the system imposes a nearly 1 in 5 chance of being relegated from the Prem (given that the big 4 are safe each year, leaving 3 out of 16 to go down), the system clearly is genuinely more to blame for any given team's relegation than any other single factor! Looking at the message boards of other relegated clubs or clubs in the relegation zone currently is instructive: the chairman or board always come in for a lot of stick and blame. Obviously, every year at least 3 clubs have chairmen who are a waste of space and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a football club, by that criterion.

 

As to your insistence on experienced managers and players: experienced managers regularly fail and get sacked -- we've seen a few examples this year, like Dowie -- and we have seen at Saints that experienced players are not alway good players. We should have a mix of youth and experience you say: indeed. But it might then occur to you that our squad contains such frequent first team players as Kelvin Davis, Chris Perry, Paul Wotton, Killer (when fit), Rudy Skacel, Jason Euell, BWP (who is certainly no longer a naive youngster, whatever other faults he may have), and even Andrew Surman (who is now in his 3rd year as a frequent or regular first teamer and so no naive beginner). But acknowledging that we actually have a mix of experience along with the youth doesn't suit the case you want to make -- "it's all Lowe's fault" -- so you ignore it.

 

What experience tells us, is that appointing a manager is always a gamble: however experienced or inexperienced, managers fail as often as they succeed, for no obvious rhyme or reason. Strachan failed at Coventry & succeeded for us; Hoddle succeeded for us and failed at Spurs; Redknapp succeeded at Pompey & failed for us; Burley was successful with other clubs before he came to us and failed; all were experienced, there is no guarantee. Sometimes new & inexperienced managers succeeed, for whatever reasons. So to suggest that only an experienced manager and experienced players would be appropriate for us, is just nonsense as some here have pointed out. You are thinking from bias, not from the real facts. Sad but indubitably true.

[St. Jason]

No matter what Lowe does or doesn't do he will get slated by the 'lowe out' people. The truth is every chairman/ board member we have had in the last 5 years is partly responsible for the position we are now in; whether it was overspending/ underspending hiring/firing managers at the wrong time getting too involve in the team/ giving the manager too much freedom in the transfer market etc.

However at this moment in time the only person who will see us out of this financial mess is Lowe. There is no alternative as chairman, there is no one with money who will buy the club, there is no one else who will have the backing of barclays. We are stuck with what we have got whether people like it or not. The fact is no amount of protesting will make Lowe leave as it means he will lose every penny he has put into the club.

 

Don't want to get drawn into anti-pro Lowe but would just like to ask what money are you talking about?? lowe has never & will never put a single penny of his own money into the club!

[St. Jason]

You make a good point in that I carelessly stated that we lost far more than we won under Pearson, whereas I meant to say that we drew and lost far more than we won, the point being that the results were very similar to those under Poortvliert, rather than far better as would be expected if your point about experienced managers and players had any validity.

 

 

Look in fairness to pearson he took over a club 80% thru the season, he had no pre-season, and was given 1 job discreption, keep us up, he kept us up!

 

After the last game i felt we had turnt a corner, i felt we as fans were united, the club seemed united and i feel given a summer of pre-season Pearson would of done well for us!

 

Say what you want about anti-Lowe but the feelings of unity i had last year have quickly dissapeared this year!

[um pahars]

Look in fairness to pearson he took over a club 80% thru the season, he had no pre-season, and was given 1 job discreption, keep us up, he kept us up!

 

After the last game i felt we had turnt a corner, i felt we as fans were united, the club seemed united and i feel given a summer of pre-season Pearson would of done well for us!

 

Say what you want about anti-Lowe but the feelings of unity i had last year have quickly dissapeared this year!

 

And if Pearson had delivered Jan's current record of a point a game, then we would have been relegated!!!!!!

 

Pearson was no demi-god and was not here long enough to prove one way or the other, but he did what he had to do in very difficult circumstances.

 

And as you say, he did unite this Club in those dark days.

[rocknrollman no2]

Hey Washsaint guess what?

We lost on Sky tv again and we were made to look like a bunch of schoolkids.

We are seriously looking at relegation,we havent got a plan A,B or even C.

And yes im still blaming Rupert bloody Lowe!

[Wes Tender]

Hey Washsaint guess what?

We lost on Sky tv again and we were made to look like a bunch of schoolkids.

We are seriously looking at relegation,we havent got a plan A,B or even C.

And yes im still blaming Rupert bloody Lowe!

 

Me too. Same ole, same ole. All the pretty passing play and no danger in the last third. Total inability to inflict punishment at the other end, but not strong enough to defend our goal.

[docker-p]

Look in fairness to pearson he took over a club 80% thru the season, he had no pre-season, and was given 1 job discreption, keep us up, he kept us up!

 

After the last game i felt we had turnt a corner, i felt we as fans were united, the club seemed united and i feel given a summer of pre-season Pearson would of done well for us!

 

Say what you want about anti-Lowe but the feelings of unity i had last year have quickly dissapeared this year!

 

I agree, and that loss of unity is why, in part, there are 5K fewer fans this season.

[NickG]

I mean no harm to your little group and generally enjoy the fun of the forum.

More importantly I enjoy being a Saints supporter and have done so since 57/58 season.

As regards you being a luvvie you little pixie,do not take it to heart as your friend nickh thinks I am a drunk just because I jokingly said I was on the cider. Every oppurtunity he gets he implies my posts are that of a drunk re Lowey and his horrendous stewardship of The Saints and every other company he has been involved in.....My opinion of course.

So in a similar way you and your group are not slow in throwing around names 9i do not drink to be honest....The very rare beer or wine...never cider)

and in some cases nasty comments about posters to suit your cause for good old Lowey.

 

If you are not a Lowey Luvvie, so what...Hopefully you are a genuine Saints supporter. But I can tell you some of the posters on here The Lowey Luvvies

have never supported Saints in their lives and will follow the failed businessman over the edge of the cliff.

The real concern is that as he takes Saints down they would not care a damn re the club or the team...Its all about their mate Lowey and that is a major concern to me.

 

So yes WHY Lowey again and why not any other reasonable businessman who should be appointed by the shareholders.

 

NickG.......Do you have a reasonable argument as to why LOWEY?

You or your group come out with the same statement he is the best and in anycase who else.......The proof,even with a bucketful of money in the Premier he was not a sucess and since then without money his skills have been shown up to be what they are...Non existent....The man is a failure in football and is slowly but surely ruining this club.

 

no, and um pahars arguments on selection are fair -however he is here - and he is only bigger than the club if you let him, and that is what people on here are doing. Also I do think some (note some!) of the cirticism is completely ridicluous, was comical and now boring.

[Halo Stickman]

... but when the system imposes a nearly 1 in 5 chance of being relegated from the Prem (given that the big 4 are safe each year, leaving 3 out of 16 to go down), the system clearly is genuinely more to blame for any given team's relegation than any other single factor!

 

Our odds were considerable shortened in 04/05 by two factors: Lowe's incompetence in failing to address the Sturrock situation until two weeks into the season, and Lowe's naivity in replacing him with Wigley.

[Wes Tender]

You make a good point in that I carelessly stated that we lost far more than we won under Pearson, whereas I meant to say that we drew and lost far more than we won, the point being that the results were very similar to those under Poortvliert, rather than far better as would be expected if your point about experienced managers and players had any validity.

 

As has been pointed out elsewhere, Pearson inherited a team of dispirited and seemingly unfit players and in a comparatively short time managed to turn them around into a team prepared to fight for the right to survive in this division. And as I say, his record was better than Poortlvliet's over the same period of time. We became a team hard to beat with only three losses. If like many others I feel that Lowe was utterly stupid not to have kept on Pearson, then I am entitled to blame him if his appointment is not producing better results.

 

Other than that: yes, quite likely Lowe will be gone in a few years. But a few years is a long time in football, and if we have to have 3 or 4 more years of constant harping on about Lowe ... well, I for one could do without it!

 

Read my post again, this time more carefully. I said that IMO Lowe would be gone within a couple of years. When I went to school, a couple meant two. And as I said, if you wish to avoid two years of constant carping, you'd better hope that Lowe manages to turn things around or leave, or else I'd advise again that you desist from reading threads like this if it bothers you.

 

Blaming Lowe for all that has gone wrong at Saints is short-sighted and one-sided, and exposes prejudice rather than any serious thought about Saints' situation.

 

Ah. So here we go again with the typical put down that if anybody disagrees with you it is short-sighted this time (not blinkered) one-sided and prejudicial. It couldn't possibly be correct in any way, shape or form. You're right and everybody who doesn't agree with you is wrong.

 

You can be flip about it being the fault of the system if you like, but when the system imposes a nearly 1 in 5 chance of being relegated from the Prem (given that the big 4 are safe each year, leaving 3 out of 16 to go down), the system clearly is genuinely more to blame for any given team's relegation than any other single factor!

 

So there is an 80% chance of a team surviving, eh? 4 out of 5 teams beat the drop. Seems pretty good odds to me. Conversely the odds of regaining promotion are also as good or as bad, depending on which way you view it.

 

Looking at the message boards of other relegated clubs or clubs in the relegation zone currently is instructive: the chairman or board always come in for a lot of stick and blame. Obviously, every year at least 3 clubs have chairmen who are a waste of space and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a football club, by that criterion.

 

Well, those two failed ex-chairmen shouldn't have had another chance, that's for sure.

 

As to your insistence on experienced managers and players: experienced managers regularly fail and get sacked -- we've seen a few examples this year, like Dowie --

 

A man of principle. And not a yes man like Poortvliet.

 

and we have seen at Saints that experienced players are not alway good players. We should have a mix of youth and experience you say: indeed. But it might then occur to you that our squad contains such frequent first team players as Kelvin Davis, Chris Perry, Paul Wotton, Killer (when fit), Rudy Skacel, Jason Euell, BWP (who is certainly no longer a naive youngster, whatever other faults he may have), and even Andrew Surman (who is now in his 3rd year as a frequent or regular first teamer and so no naive beginner). But acknowledging that we actually have a mix of experience along with the youth doesn't suit the case you want to make -- "it's all Lowe's fault" -- so you ignore it.

 

How many times has Killer played this season? The same question about Wotton. Apart from Surman and to a lesser extent BWP, all of those players you've mentioned have hardly had a decent run in the team. It has only been after we have been in freefall that it occurs that we ought to have Perry's experience in defence, Scacel's experience at LB, Euell also late on. You're almost proving my point for me. Thanks.

 

What experience tells us, is that appointing a manager is always a gamble: however experienced or inexperienced, managers fail as often as they succeed, for no obvious rhyme or reason. Strachan failed at Coventry & succeeded for us;

 

Strachan had to sell all of his best players under direction of his Chairman. You could have formed a decent Premiership team from the players he had to sell.

 

Hoddle succeeded for us and failed at Spurs;

 

Spur's expectations were far higher than ours.

 

Redknapp succeeded at Pompey & failed for us;

 

Most acknowledge that his heart wasn't in it here. Also that Lowe's meddling and appointment of SCW and Clifford were unhelpful along with other reasons.

 

Burley was successful with other clubs before he came to us and failed;

 

Burley was past it, as were several of the players he brought here from his past.

 

all were experienced, there is no guarantee. Sometimes new & inexperienced managers succeeed, for whatever reasons. So to suggest that only an experienced manager and experienced players would be appropriate for us, is just nonsense as some here have pointed out. You are thinking from bias, not from the real facts. Sad but indubitably true.

 

Again, if you read what I have posted with a greater degree of care than you have shown so far, I never said that only an experienced manager and experienced players would be appropriate. I clearly said that our problems stemmed from having a manager inexperienced in football in this country and at this level together with the replacement of experienced players by naive youngsters. That is not the same as what you think I meant. You are thinking from bias, not from the real facts. Sad but indubitably true.

[Sundance Beast]

And if Pearson had delivered Jan's current record of a point a game, then we would have been relegated!!!!!!

 

Pearson was no demi-god and was not here long enough to prove one way or the other, but he did what he had to do in very difficult circumstances.

 

And as you say, he did unite this Club in those dark days.

 

JP has delivered an average of 1pt per game with a team mainly consisting of youth players. Pearson achieved an average of 1.15pt with a team of over-paid experienced professionals and despite having players like Lallana at his diposal he hardly played him and chose to play Surman at left back. Pearson was truly inspired, he delivered on his job description by putting us in the drop zone with 2 games to play and in a position where we were no longer in control of our own destiny.

 

We still have a long way to go and with a degree of rational persepctive it is difficult to see us being in the same position that Pearson put us in last May, as we have a team though capable of throwing in the towel occassionally they remain a team capable of improving and getting great results like we did at Reading, Sheff Utd, Preston, etc. In fact looking at our record against the top 8 we have been very unlucky and its a football cliche but luck does tend to level out over the season. Bring on Burnley. Luck did level out for Pearson but only just, don't think it will be that desperate at the end of this season provided we keep the faith.

 

BTW - a message for Dave Merrington. Please retire now, your comments are not welcome or warranted especially when you can only refer to some of our players only by their position and not their name. I didn't know Pearce was playing until he was substituted as Merrington just referred to him as the centre Half. Dave, instead of moaing about Jan's lack of homework or preparation have a look at your own preparation first and once you know our player's names and can identify them in your commentary then your comments may actually carry some weight. Otherwise, refer yourself to Roy Keane's amusing take on pundits, you fit the bill perfectly. You tired, bitter and sad old man.

 

Finally, if by unity we mean the circus that was our last game of the season whereby 10-15k fans suddenly decided they wanted to come and support the club or rubber-neck and pretend what loyal fans they are then unity is something we don't need. Unity are those loyal 15k who regularly give or take a 1,000 or so, continue to support the club through the times they are needed the most. I hope in the unlikely event that we are in the same position at the end of the season that club issues tickets as per the Man U game so loyal ST holders can perhaps bring along a long suffering and equally loyal family member and keep those with a newly pressing need for unity where they have chosen to belong, on the outside.

 

A lesson in how to play the long ball game is not cause for concern and if that's the sort of mindless football you want our young players to develop then good luck to you. They were outplayed tonight but they will also learn from it and unlike our seasoned pro's of last season can actually improve significantly and adapt. Just another 24 games and turn some of those unlucky draws and defeats into wins and draws and lets face it I think we'll see apprentices become craftsmen, hopefully at this club but then we are back to what unity actually means.

 

Anti- Lowe, no they are more like conscientious objectors who prefer to shroud their cowardice in some moralistic side show of a debate. 11 men in Red and White (and a few boys) and a ball, battling on your underved behalf, that is what it is all about. They need your support not your pontificating and inside knowledge of the world of accountancy, duck hunting, machinations of a UK PLC, conspiracy theories and the class divide.

 

Goodnight.

[Wes Tender]

JP has delivered an average of 1pt per game with a team mainly consisting of youth players. Pearson achieved an average of 1.15pt with a team of over-paid experienced professionals and despite having players like Lallana at his diposal he hardly played him and chose to play Surman at left back. Pearson was truly inspired, he delivered on his job description by putting us in the drop zone with 2 games to play and in a position where we were no longer in control of our own destiny.

 

We still have a long way to go and with a degree of rational persepctive it is difficult to see us being in the same position that Pearson put us in last May, as we have a team though capable of throwing in the towel occassionally they remain a team capable of improving and getting great results like we did at Reading, Sheff Utd, Preston, etc. In fact looking at our record against the top 8 we have been very unlucky and its a football cliche but luck does tend to level out over the season. Bring on Burnley. Luck did level out for Pearson but only just, don't think it will be that desperate at the end of this season provided we keep the faith.

 

BTW - a message for Dave Merrington. Please retire now, your comments are not welcome or warranted especially when you can only refer to some of our players only by their position and not their name. I didn't know Pearce was playing until he was substituted as Merrington just referred to him as the centre Half. Dave, instead of moaing about Jan's lack of homework or preparation have a look at your own preparation first and once you know our player's names and can identify them in your commentary then your comments may actually carry some weight. Otherwise, refer yourself to Roy Keane's amusing take on pundits, you fit the bill perfectly. You tired, bitter and sad old man.

 

Finally, if by unity we mean the circus that was our last game of the season whereby 10-15k fans suddenly decided they wanted to come and support the club or rubber-neck and pretend what loyal fans they are then unity is something we don't need. Unity are those loyal 15k who regularly give or take a 1,000 or so, continue to support the club through the times they are needed the most. I hope in the unlikely event that we are in the same position at the end of the season that club issues tickets as per the Man U game so loyal ST holders can perhaps bring along a long suffering and equally loyal family member and keep those with a newly pressing need for unity where they have chosen to belong, on the outside.

 

A lesson in how to play the long ball game is not cause for concern and if that's the sort of mindless football you want our young players to develop then good luck to you. They were outplayed tonight but they will also learn from it and unlike our seasoned pro's of last season can actually improve significantly and adapt. Just another 24 games and turn some of those unlucky draws and defeats into wins and draws and lets face it I think we'll see apprentices become craftsmen, hopefully at this club but then we are back to what unity actually means.

 

Anti- Lowe, no they are more like conscientious objectors who prefer to shroud their cowardice in some moralistic side show of a debate. 11 men in Red and White (and a few boys) and a ball, battling on your underved behalf, that is what it is all about. They need your support not your pontificating and inside knowledge of the world of accountancy, duck hunting, machinations of a UK PLC, conspiracy theories and the class divide.

 

Goodnight.

 

Blimey, Sundance. Whereas I don't agree with some of what you say, I must say that your posts since your return have been a lot more measured and reasonable and long may it continue.

[Sundance Beast]

Again, if you read what I have posted with a greater degree of care than you have shown so far, I never said that only an experienced manager and experienced players would be appropriate. I clearly said that our problems stemmed from having a manager inexperienced in football in this country and at this level together with the replacement of experienced players by naive youngsters. That is not the same as what you think I meant. You are thinking from bias, not from the real facts. Sad but indubitably true.

 

JP I think was more experienced than Pearson. How many games did Pearson have at Carlisle when his goalkeeper saved him from dropping Carlisle out of the football league on the last day of the season about 8 years ago? If both CV's landed blind on your desks and you had to choose one which one do you go for? Pearson's short reign at Carlisle which was surprisingly not extended by a grateful Carlisle board or JP who appears to have certainly played at a slightly higher level if we can agree playing in a world cup final for a team that shaped a new generation of players was not within Pearson's lists of notable achievements.

 

We should mention he had held down a managerial job for a lot longer than Pearson albeit at a lower level. Perhaps someone just considered a deserved promotion was on the cards and give us the benefit of his massive knowledge at all levels of the game. Merrington was questioning the Dutch tonight but there are a lot of good players still coming out of a small country so they must have something right. They just don't have our mentality, perhaps that is ultimately what won him the job.

[Weston Super Saint]

JP I think was more experienced than Pearson. How many games did Pearson have at Carlisle when his goalkeeper saved him from dropping Carlisle out of the football league on the last day of the season about 8 years ago? If both CV's landed blind on your desks and you had to choose one which one do you go for? Pearson's short reign at Carlisle which was surprisingly not extended by a grateful Carlisle board or JP who appears to have certainly played at a slightly higher level if we can agree playing in a world cup final for a team that shaped a new generation of players was not within Pearson's lists of notable achievements.

 

Did you miss the bit about experience of football IN THIS COUNTRY?

 

I'm assuming you did, hence your mindless drivel

[Wes Tender]

Did you miss the bit about experience of football IN THIS COUNTRY?

 

I'm assuming you did, hence your mindless drivel

 

That was indeed the really pertinent point against JP.

 

Again, although on paper a CV from JP might have appeared better than NP's at first glance, I must say that NP had come across as one of the most erudite and compelling speakers in an interview that I have ever seen in football.

 

Although only based on conjecture, I'd believe that NP would be the one of the two who would command the greater respect from the players and also be the greater motivator.

 

But then again, Lowe wouldn't have been able to work with him because he is his own man and from that perspective it is irrelevant.

[RinNY]

Again, if you read what I have posted with a greater degree of care than you have shown so far, I never said that only an experienced manager and experienced players would be appropriate. I clearly said that our problems stemmed from having a manager inexperienced in football in this country and at this level together with the replacement of experienced players by naive youngsters. That is not the same as what you think I meant. You are thinking from bias, not from the real facts. Sad but indubitably true.

 

And what you clearly said is clearly balderdash: many managers with no experience in this country nevertheless succeed at football in this country: the list starts with the likes of Wenger and Houllier and Mourinho and Benitez, and is exceedingly long. You do not know that Poortvliet is not his own man: that is merely prejudice talking. You do not know that Pearson would have been his own man: that is merely bias talking. You choose to believe what you wish to believe, as do most folk: fine. But you state your biased opinions as facts, and that will not wash! A great man once said that everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts. When you learn to state your biased opinions merely as your opinions, and not as facts, you will be worthy of respect. Until then, you are just another of the sad little band of haters on this board who cannot see past their personal spite.

 

I too joined the anti-Lowe bandwagon after relegation, and I saw where it led. Nothing was better after Lowe was ousted; some things got worse. One thing I've always tried to do in my life is learn from experience: you should try it some time. But, in the words of Eddie Izzard: I know you won't.

[Tamesaint]

Did you miss the bit about experience of football IN THIS COUNTRY?

 

I'm assuming you did, hence your mindless drivel

 

 

He also made the common mistake of assuming that good players make good managers. Hurst & Peters scored 4 goals in a world cup final. They were rubbish managers. Moore captained a World Cup team. He was a poor manager. Bobby Charlton was the inspirational figure in a World Cup winning team. He couldn't hack it as a manager.

 

The complaint against Poorteveilt is not that he was a good player. It is that he is an inexperienced manager who has spent his career scrambling around the fourth and fifth tiers of the Dutch league. After the abject failure of Wigley (and despite the attempt at rewriting history from Rinny and co you are 100 % certain of relegation if your chairman is so stupid as to have 3 managers before Xmas) you would have thought that Lowe would have thought twice about sacking an experienced guy for an untried noviice...but you clearly do not think twice. if you have an ego the size of Rupert's.

[Tamesaint]

 

A lesson in how to play the long ball game is not cause for concern

 

 

It is a cause for concern if you spend time and money supporting your team on a cold winter's night, 70 miles from home. It was cold comfort walking back through the streets of Norwood last night to think "oh well , Palace are just a long ball team... we are a proper football team."

 

To progress as a football club we need to win matches. We need to beat long ball teams. As far as I am aware there is no law of football which insists that you make 15 passes before getting the ball into the penalty area. If we happily accept defeats like last night's because Palace are a long ball team we might as well all give up.

[wadesmith]

My god, this place is like the Marie Celeste these days and no wonder! Posters like Navyred being forced out by the continual bitterness and shrewing of the crowd.

 

Whenever we don't win a game, posters always have to find a scapegoat...be it McGoldrick, Lallana, Patterson, whomever - and most of those throwing the stones have not even been there to see the game!

 

Why all the constant threads about Lowe? He's kept a low profile and it's about the team - our hands are tied by the Banks and we should be giving all our support to the young lads who are trying to move us forward.

 

Yes, it's frustrating when we throw away 3 points like on Saturday but it's all part of the learning curve.....for those that preferred to watch last seasons overpaid, useless good for nothings......I am surprised.

 

For goodness sake, get behind the team and manager instead of constantly slagging them off - for the first time in years we have a group of players who WANT to play for Saints rather than the money.

 

I read something in the paper yesterday that I agree with, it was in reference to the Arsenal fans booing their own player. They said the trouble is the clubs no longer treat us as SUPPORTERS but CONSUMERS, and the trouble with Consumers is if they are expected to pay £25.00 & don't like the product they will complain or find something else to do. I think that this is a pretty good explanation as to our current malaise. The clubs took our support for granted during the good times & are now paying for it. The fact Arsenal fans have a succesful team & are whinging more than us kind of backs this theory up in my view.

[hughieslastminutegoal]

My god, this place is like the Marie Celeste these days and no wonder! Posters like Navyred being forced out by the continual bitterness and shrewing of the crowd.

 

Whenever we don't win a game, posters always have to find a scapegoat...be it McGoldrick, Lallana, Patterson, whomever - and most of those throwing the stones have not even been there to see the game!

 

Why all the constant threads about Lowe? He's kept a low profile and it's about the team - our hands are tied by the Banks and we should be giving all our support to the young lads who are trying to move us forward.

 

Yes, it's frustrating when we throw away 3 points like on Saturday but it's all part of the learning curve.....for those that preferred to watch last seasons overpaid, useless good for nothings......I am surprised.

 

For goodness sake, get behind the team and manager instead of constantly slagging them off - for the first time in years we have a group of players who WANT to play for Saints rather than the money.

 

I don't really understand your point.

 

Before internet forums, when people got together down the pub and talk about football, are you saying they never criticised and pontificated, slagged players off, argued that the manager should be sacked? That's been the case ever since there has been professional football; it's a large part of why people are interested in it; why their club is important.

 

So why on earth should an internet forum be any different?

 

If you were criticising the barracking of young players during the match, I'd maybe agree with you, but getting all huffy about points of view on a forum like this is being just a bit silly.

 

And the real point is this: If you accept that barracking poor performance during/at the end of the match is a no-no, then when the hell are you allowed to criticise, say what you think should be done, who should be sacked, transferred, appointed, blah blah?

 

Or are we all supposed to sit around telling each other that the emperor's new suit is just fine, and the material is the best considering the court coffers are empty? No dissenting voices allowed?

Edited 9 December, 2008 by hughieslastminutegoal

[Wes Tender]

And what you clearly said is clearly balderdash: many managers with no experience in this country nevertheless succeed at football in this country: the list starts with the likes of Wenger and Houllier and Mourinho and Benitez, and is exceedingly long.

 

Thanks for listing all the managers from abroad who have done well in the Premiership with the clubs that are the big 4 who you yourself said are always safe because they have loads of dosh to buy the best players in the World. Now list me the clubs in this division who have excelled with foreign managers. Furthermore, you have listed the managers with a top record of success in their top divisions. How many managers have come over here from the lower divisions of their countries and succeeded? I await your list with keen anticipation

 

 

You do not know that Poortvliet is not his own man: that is merely prejudice talking. You do not know that Pearson would have been his own man: that is merely bias talking. You choose to believe what you wish to believe, as do most folk: fine. But you state your biased opinions as facts, and that will not wash! A great man once said that everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts. When you learn to state your biased opinions merely as your opinions, and not as facts, you will be worthy of respect. Until then, you are just another of the sad little band of haters on this board who cannot see past their personal spite.

 

All opinions are biased, are they not? Your opinions are biased against mine because you are prejudiced against those who hold a different viewpoint from you. When you become more accepting of the views of others who you disagree with, I will have more respect for your viewpoint. I will also have greater respect for you if instead of namecalling you attempted to debate your position sensibly. But I have learned that often when people cannot come up with sensible arguments to support their case, they often resort to abuse

 

I too joined the anti-Lowe bandwagon after relegation, and I saw where it led. Nothing was better after Lowe was ousted; some things got worse. One thing I've always tried to do in my life is learn from experience: you should try it some time. But, in the words of Eddie Izzard: I know you won't.

Ah. That great fount of all wisdom Eddie Izzard; right up their with the World's great philosophers. So what you have learned from your experience is that because we tried having others running the club and that wasn't entirely successful, we should never attempt to try anybody else again? Lowe will be happy to know that he has managed to grind down some former dissenters who will accept him purely on the basis that they believe that it is worthless attempting to oust him, as whoever takes his place just conceivably could be worse than him.

[Fan The Flames]

The amount of people who were not bothered about Lowe before, who then realised when he was gone how utterly brilliant he was is outstanding. They weren't Lowe supporters before but are steadfast in their support of him now. They think that makes their argument more convincing.

[ottery st mary]

I still believe that Lowey will walk sooner than later......Let him just have his last 15 minutes of fame with the Man Utd Game......

It might be too late for our league position or our CCC future...

I expect to see him in the pre match warm up and in the dug out more often...It is a natural progression from the changing room for a Director of Football when The coaches he selected are unable to follow his orders.

 

Lowey please let some one else make the decisions before it is too late.

[solentstars]

The amount of people who were not bothered about Lowe before, who then realised when he was gone how utterly brilliant he was is outstanding. They weren't Lowe supporters before but are steadfast in their support of him now. They think that makes their argument more convincing.

they are not supporters of lowe,because they do not live their lives worrying about the **** and want to talk about him on every thread.

[Snowballs2]

Going back to the original title...someone MUST be held accountable for this season. Its a fact that results being so poor the "customers" have turned their back on the product, this is now causing extreme financial problems, but, the customers are not responsible for this. They are doing what any customer has a right to do with a poor product ...stopped buying it. Things can only get worse

[up and away]

Originally Posted by voteforpedro

No matter what Lowe does or doesn't do he will get slated by the 'lowe out' people. The truth is every chairman/ board member we have had in the last 5 years is partly responsible for the position we are now in; whether it was overspending/ underspending hiring/firing managers at the wrong time getting too involve in the team/ giving the manager too much freedom in the transfer market etc.

However at this moment in time the only person who will see us out of this financial mess is Lowe. There is no alternative as chairman, there is no one with money who will buy the club, there is no one else who will have the backing of barclays. We are stuck with what we have got whether people like it or not. The fact is no amount of protesting will make Lowe leave as it means he will lose every penny he has put into the club.

I've read this from a lot of posters on here but I can't remember one of them ever explaining why?

 

Lowe is in power because Wilde had a panic attack, it is not because of his remarkable business recovery skills.

 

Everything that has been done since Lowe has returned is what is required for the mess we are in. These decisions needed to be made and more importantly acted upon. I watched Crouch bury his head in the sand long enough waiting for a blow job from the take over fairy. That's why Wilde had that remarkable turn around because he realised there was absolutely no hope unless he acted. Bearing in mind Wilde's previous position, things had to be really, really bad for that step to be made.

 

It does not worry who does the job, as long as they make the best of what we have at that particular time. It is the decisions and actions that are important and this time round is exactly what is required if we are to have any chance of getting out of this mess. If Crouch were making these decisions and actions I would be equally supportive, but all his eggs have been tucked up with the take over fairy.

[Wes Tender]

Voteforpedro: There is no alternative as chairman, there is no one with money who will buy the club, there is no one else who will have the backing of barclays. We are stuck with what we have got whether people like it or not. The fact is no amount of protesting will make Lowe leave as it means he will lose every penny he has put into the club.

 

Of course there are alternatives as Chairman. That's like saying that only Gordon Brown can be PM. There are several possible choices within the existing shareholders and indeed from within the existing Board, let alone that an outside Chairman could be appointed. If you really meant to say that there are no realistic choices out there, then you would be closer; is that what you meant to say?

 

As for stating that there is nobody else who would have the support of Barclays, what possible grounds could you have for that remark? Even if you had inside information from working for them on the SLH account, you could not divulge that information on grounds of client confidentiality, so I'm presuming that you know nothing of the sort and are just speculating without grounds.

 

You are even wrong that no amount of protesting would remove Lowe either. If there was a mass boycott with the express intention of getting him off the board, it would achieve the desired result quite quickly, in line with your assessment that Lowe would wish to preserve his shareholding; but he wouldn't have to be chairman to do that. He would only lose it all if we went into administration and naturally he would feel that he was the best person to avoid that situation, although I'm sure that he is not the only person in the World capable of running a second division football club efficiently.

[slickmick]

Of course there are alternatives as Chairman. That's like saying that only Gordon Brown can be PM. There are several possible choices within the existing shareholders and indeed from within the existing Board, let alone that an outside Chairman could be appointed. If you really meant to say that there are no realistic choices out there, then you would be closer; is that what you meant to say?

 

As for stating that there is nobody else who would have the support of Barclays, what possible grounds could you have for that remark? Even if you had inside information from working for them on the SLH account, you could not divulge that information on grounds of client confidentiality, so I'm presuming that you know nothing of the sort and are just speculating without grounds.

 

You are even wrong that no amount of protesting would remove Lowe either. If there was a mass boycott with the express intention of getting him off the board, it would achieve the desired result quite quickly, in line with your assessment that Lowe would wish to preserve his shareholding; but he wouldn't have to be chairman to do that. He would only lose it all if we went into administration and naturally he would feel that he was the best person to avoid that situation, although I'm sure that he is not the only person in the World capable of running a second division football club efficiently.

 

 

Thing is Wes, you keep on bleating out the same old ****e( like Stanley) but don't seem to be able to put forward a better candidate. I wish there was one, but the truth is we can't guarantee anything better than what we have got. Unless they have money to put into the club we will struggle just as much as we did with Wilde,Crouch ect.

 

Now instead of wasting your breathe repeating yourself, stick your neck out and nominate a new Chairman, manager and players and give us something to discuss.

[Fan The Flames]

they are not supporters of lowe,because they do not live their lives worrying about the **** and want to talk about him on every thread.

 

Unlike me and you.

[Wes Tender]

Slickmick:

 

Thing is Wes, you keep on bleating out the same old ****e( like Stanley) but don't seem to be able to put forward a better candidate. I wish there was one, but the truth is we can't guarantee anything better than what we have got. Unless they have money to put into the club we will struggle just as much as we did with Wilde,Crouch ect.

 

Now instead of wasting your breathe repeating yourself, stick your neck out and nominate a new Chairman, manager and players and give us something to discuss.

Read it again. I said that there was scope for appointing others as chairman from either within the existing board or shareholders or from outside. If an outside appointment were made, then somebody like Salz would do an admirable job, I'm sure. If the appointment was made from amongst the existing board or shareholders, then there would be scope for more infighting or clashing egos and less chance of unification of the fractured fan base.

 

Management wise, then we let go the one that many would have been happy with, but I'd settle for somebody like Billy Davies or similar, even Dowie.

 

Players? I'm not dissatisfied with many we have here already, except that there are obvious improvements that have to be made both to strengthen the defence and increase the potency of the attack. Get rid of all the dross that we have brought in that hasn't yet played much and get somebody like Lucketti at the back again and either one of the three strikers we loaned out, play 4-4-2 at home and 4-5-1 away and we'd be a lot better off IMO.

[Fan The Flames]

Thing is Wes, you keep on bleating out the same old ****e( like Stanley) but don't seem to be able to put forward a better candidate. I wish there was one, but the truth is we can't guarantee anything better than what we have got. Unless they have money to put into the club we will struggle just as much as we did with Wilde,Crouch ect.

 

Now instead of wasting your breathe repeating yourself, stick your neck out and nominate a new Chairman, manager and players and give us something to discuss.

 

I'm sorry but what you are saying is the same old sh#te, this is your default argument when the chips are down. How many times does it need to be said there are hundreds of eligible people who could run the Club better than the very average Lowe. There is absolutly no merit in plucking names out of the hat to 'discuss'. At the end of the day whether you think Lowe is doing a good job or not thousands don't want him and whilst that continues SFC suffers, so whether you like it or not we would be better of if he steps down.

[rocknrollman no2]

Thing is Wes, you keep on bleating out the same old ****e( like Stanley) but don't seem to be able to put forward a better candidate. I wish there was one, but the truth is we can't guarantee anything better than what we have got. Unless they have money to put into the club we will struggle just as much as we did with Wilde,Crouch ect.

 

Now instead of wasting your breathe repeating yourself, stick your neck out and nominate a new Chairman, manager and players and give us something to discuss.

 

Hey ive got a brilliant idea.

Lets ADVERTISE the post of Chairman,Football director or whatever it is Lowe does and lets see who applies.

Bet you can get someone whos a better businessman than Lowe.

[slickmick]

Read it again. I said that there was scope for appointing others as chairman from either within the existing board or shareholders or from outside. If an outside appointment were made, then somebody like Salz would do an admirable job, I'm sure. If the appointment was made from amongst the existing board or shareholders, then there would be scope for more infighting or clashing egos and less chance of unification of the fractured fan base.

 

Management wise, then we let go the one that many would have been happy with, but I'd settle for somebody like Billy Davies or similar, even Dowie.

 

Players? I'm not dissatisfied with many we have here already, except that there are obvious improvements that have to be made both to strengthen the defence and increase the potency of the attack. Get rid of all the dross that we have brought in that hasn't yet played much and get somebody like Lucketti at the back again and either one of the three strikers we loaned out, play 4-4-2 at home and 4-5-1 away and we'd be a lot better off IMO.

 

I was all for the removal of Lowe last time and I still am now,but surely not at any cost. Look what happened last time.

Salz, I don't know anything about him other than whats been posted on here. He may well be a better option, but without a big wad he will be under the same restrictions as present. It could just be a sideways move.

As for someone within the board, well thats hardly going to make progress in my view.

 

The one thing we do agree on is that Pearson could have done a better job. As for others, I still would have preferred the likes of Micky Adams, knows the club and would have been cheap. Other than that, a certain Glenn Hoddle would have got these kids in order. But for now, I cant see any light at the end of the tunnel. I am just hoping that we can keep our noses clear of the bottom three and pray that the summer brings us a turn of fortunes.

[slickmick]

Hey ive got a brilliant idea.

Lets ADVERTISE the post of Chairman,Football director or whatever it is Lowe does and lets see who applies.

Bet you can get someone whos a better businessman than Lowe.

 

 

As has been said many times, theres more to running a football club than being a good businessman.

[Wes Tender]

I was all for the removal of Lowe last time and I still am now,but surely not at any cost. Look what happened last time.

Salz, I don't know anything about him other than whats been posted on here. He may well be a better option, but without a big wad he will be under the same restrictions as present. It could just be a sideways move.

As for someone within the board, well thats hardly going to make progress in my view.

 

The one thing we do agree on is that Pearson could have done a better job. As for others, I still would have preferred the likes of Micky Adams, knows the club and would have been cheap. Other than that, a certain Glenn Hoddle would have got these kids in order. But for now, I cant see any light at the end of the tunnel. I am just hoping that we can keep our noses clear of the bottom three and pray that the summer brings us a turn of fortunes.

 

I'm most interested in the removal of Lowe on grounds of club unity. I can't see many denying that he is the biggest obstacle to the unity of the club in its entire history and therefore his replacement would help to heal deep wounds and have most pulling together to help the club. In particular, the change of chairman, manager and playing strategy could probably increase revenues through the turnstiles to aid our parlous financial situation.

 

Salz is a seriously big hitter in the business community and any serious company would love to have him on the board or as chairman. He commands immense respect from most people and has high profile contacts and reputably a demeanour that people warm to rather than the antagonistic manner of our current chairman. Why would he have to bring a big wad with him? Unless we gain serious outside investment, we are stuck with following a similar course of cutting our costs according to our means, but not necessarily in the same way. As to the further composition of the board, I would prefer it not to contain any of the major shareholders, otherwise we would only have them bickering at each other again, which is not constructive. If they insisted on being represented, then it would be imperative that there was a balance between rival groups with somebody like Salz with the casting vote.

 

As to the manager, we are more restricted than previously as to the choices available to us, but I'm of the opinion that even that choice would be greater if Lowe was gone and replaced with a board with the likes of Salz on it. As I said, I have been impressed with the quality of some of the youngsters and with a bit of tinkering, some decent loan signings to cover our deficiencies at the back and the front, we could begin to go places, especially with a united fan base.

[slickmick]

I'm most interested in the removal of Lowe on grounds of club unity. I can't see many denying that he is the biggest obstacle to the unity of the club in its entire history and therefore his replacement would help to heal deep wounds and have most pulling together to help the club. In particular, the change of chairman, manager and playing strategy could probably increase revenues through the turnstiles to aid our parlous financial situation.

 

Salz is a seriously big hitter in the business community and any serious company would love to have him on the board or as chairman. He commands immense respect from most people and has high profile contacts and reputably a demeanour that people warm to rather than the antagonistic manner of our current chairman. Why would he have to bring a big wad with him?You answer this in your next sentence. Unless we gain serious outside investment, we are stuck with following a similar course of cutting our costs according to our means, but not necessarily in the same way. As to the further composition of the board, I would prefer it not to contain any of the major shareholders, otherwise we would only have them bickering at each other again, which is not constructive. If they insisted on being represented, then it would be imperative that there was a balance between rival groups with somebody like Salz with the casting vote.

 

As to the manager, we are more restricted than previously as to the choices available to us, but I'm of the opinion that even that choice would be greater if Lowe was gone and replaced with a board with the likes of Salz on it. As I said, I have been impressed with the quality of some of the youngsters and with a bit of tinkering, some decent loan signings to cover our deficiencies at the back and the front, we could begin to go places, especially with a united fan base.

 

 

 

The first bit in bold is what gets me, It seems ok for someone else to come in and say we are in financial poo and make unpopular decisions but when Lowe says it he gets castrated? How would you feel if Salz said he was going to sell 5 of our best players in January?

 

Having said that, I wouldn't mind seeing Salz at the helm, but I don't expect things to change for some time yet, in the same way as I don't under Lowe's leadership. Gates will not suddenly go up 5000 overnight, that has little to do with what man is at the healm.

 

Second bit in bold, you don't think Jan could do this ?

After all he has to take some credit for the attractive football we play. But as you have pointed out, there are areas that need addressing. We are only a couple of players short of being a very good team, until January that is.

[Norm]

People like Wes Tender and Apline Saint have only one aim, to see Lowe out. They arrogantly write their interpretation and slate anyone who posts positive comments about the club, the team or the manager.The crux of the problem is simple: we do not have any money having seen Crouch, Wilde, Deliue, Hoon and co whittle away the money over their tenure of the club. Yes, we all know that Lowe made some horrendos mistakes, but when he left we were still financially viable.The one point that gets me is people saying that they will not go to watch Saints as it will line Lowes pockets. Well that is simply crap.* Lowe is a paid Director. He is receiving no dividends from shares; there are no dividends being paid. Frankly he is a better option than De Lieu or Hoon and certainly Crouch.

 

Get real, unless you have shed loads of money to buy him out or gain enough support from other shareholders the situation is not going to change.

 

If you support Saints you go to watch the team not the chairman, so the message is quite simple: get behind the team, if you can afford too, go to St Marys go!!! The club needs your business!! The football being played is good to watch we just need a goal scorer!! COYR

 

I agree with the above. I often wonder at many of the posts on here, is it just blind dislike/hatred of one person that drives them?

[1965onwards]

Why can't people accept that people support in their own individual way.

 

If you do'nt care who is in the boardroom,that is up to you,but don't deny other people looking at things in a different way.

 

Fed up with uber-fan arseholes dictating how people are supposed to support their club,or not as the case may be.

 

Don't see non-attendees telling people NOT to go,and calling people who are putting money in Lowes pocket poor fans.

[Sundance Beast]

I'm most interested in the removal of Lowe on grounds of club unity. I can't see many denying that he is the biggest obstacle to the unity of the club in its entire history and therefore his replacement would help to heal deep wounds and have most pulling together to help the club. In particular, the change of chairman, manager and playing strategy could probably increase revenues through the turnstiles to aid our parlous financial situation.

 

Salz is a seriously big hitter in the business community and any serious company would love to have him on the board or as chairman. He commands immense respect from most people and has high profile contacts and reputably a demeanour that people warm to rather than the antagonistic manner of our current chairman. Why would he have to bring a big wad with him? Unless we gain serious outside investment, we are stuck with following a similar course of cutting our costs according to our means, but not necessarily in the same way. As to the further composition of the board, I would prefer it not to contain any of the major shareholders, otherwise we would only have them bickering at each other again, which is not constructive. If they insisted on being represented, then it would be imperative that there was a balance between rival groups with somebody like Salz with the casting vote.

 

As to the manager, we are more restricted than previously as to the choices available to us, but I'm of the opinion that even that choice would be greater if Lowe was gone and replaced with a board with the likes of Salz on it. As I said, I have been impressed with the quality of some of the youngsters and with a bit of tinkering, some decent loan signings to cover our deficiencies at the back and the front, we could begin to go places, especially with a united fan base.

 

Wes, first of all I would endorse your view of Salz and agree with you and SlickMick that without investment he would have to adopt a similar strategy. Where I'm not clear, is when you say that he would have to adopt cost cutting but not in the same way. Without any antagonism, I would like to understand how he could adopt a cost cutting approach in a different way other than the softer skills that you allude to with regard to his demeanour. Would it be simply a case that he will still have to sell our best assets but would have the personaility to be able to deliver the news in a different way that would make some fans feel better or others feel hoodwinked who prefer Lowe's more robust approach?

 

I agree the board structure should not represent the major shareholders, in a post Lowe world, but the executive board should consist of shareholders simply because I believe it encourages them to act more diligently in the interests of the company although I prefer the term 'our club'. This is based on the premise if you own something, and spent a lot of money on it, relatively speaking, you tend to look after it . The non-execs are key and they need to be completely impartial with real business acumen, or with professional clout in their field of expertise and a personality to match. Our previous non-execs IMO have been toothless and readily ignored which is a concern when I see their role as ensuring the executive directors are acting in the best interests of the shareholders and therefore our club.

 

All this of course is assuming the PLC status is maintained which may actually be the crux of the matter and not about Lowe, or whoever should or should not be chairman. I don't have enough expertise in how to dissolve a PLC to comment only to say as a PLC those in charge are at least accountable to the SEC and not just to themselves and therefore it could be argued we have as fans actually more transparency and can actually buy into the club if we wish but at the moment that may not be advisable.

 

I'm happy with the manager at the moment and can see what he is trying to build. Pearson was erudite compared with what we were use to but perhaps if we all spoke Dutch we may say the same about JP. Pearson, IMO would not have been able to adopt the strategy the board have taken as his skills appear to lie with motivating senior pros who should frankly know better. Apart from someone like Cotterill or even Craig Levene if he could be persuaded to risk the English game again, there are not many managers who we could afford that I would welcome over JP. We are hamstrung by our finances and whilst Lowe may have made some poor decisions (who hasn't) they were compounded beyond all recognition in the ensuing two years for which he cannot be blamed nor proverbially and habitually beaten up if he has taken it on again on our behalf (and his as a shareholder) to try and turn it around.

 

Maybe the removal of Lowe is not in the best interests of club unity and that unity may actually lie with us fans who perhaps should develop a little humility and forgive, forget and support until such time as a character like Salz throws his hat in the ring. Until then I don't see any potential candidate doing anything different to Lowe that will benefit the club and admidst a worldwide economic slowdown how realistic is it going to be to expect the £100m investment that I would consider the minimum amount required to elevate this club back to pre 2003 the easy way.

 

If we make it the current way, even if it takes 5 years it will make us all puff out our chest with some pride that I doubt a modern day Chelsea or even Pompey fan has ever experienced. What was the greater achievement Gaydamak winning the FA Cup this year or us reaching the final in 2003. Personally, I prefer my success is earned and not brought and my support of the club is intrinsic to me and my core belief, love and motivation for the club and not extrinsicly motivated by boardroom personalities or stories of fairytale investment. We are doing it the hard way pretty much as Bates did and the club needs us all to unite and rally behind the team because at the moment there is no other realistic alternative.

 

BTW - I appreciated your comment above and whilst I may have changed my approach I am still the same passionate fan. If I have changed it was due to the fact you backed me when I retalitated against the usual rabid nonsense I'm subjected to like many supporters of Lowe and in my experience do not get the support of the mods. That backing didn't go unappreciated from someone who I considered to be an arrogant enemy in an ill-conceived civil war of words. Time to agree to disagree and support and when Lowe's leadership is challenged then let the debate begin but until we are back on some kind of secure footing what is all this undignified and disunified approach actually acheiving? IMO it's more damaging than any boardroom policy in the last 5 years and like it or not it is manifesting itself on the pitch with some players looking almost scared to have a shot or a searching pass for fear of reprisal

[Greenridge]

 

..Pearson, IMO would not have been able to adopt the strategy the board have taken as his skills appear to lie with motivating senior pros who should frankly know better...

 

 

Some well thought out points SB. What I'm not sure I understand is the basis for the view that Pearson would not cope dealing with youngsters bearing in mind he has worked with England at many levels including the U21's where he was also caretaker manager for a while. It seems to be a convenient argument from the pro-Lowe / anti-Pearson camp that appears to lack any substance. Or is there evidence to suggest otherwise that I'm missing?

[up and away]

Originally Posted by Ian the Red

People like Wes Tender and Apline Saint have only one aim, to see Lowe out. They arrogantly write their interpretation and slate anyone who posts positive comments about the club, the team or the manager.The crux of the problem is simple: we do not have any money having seen Crouch, Wilde, Deliue, Hoon and co whittle away the money over their tenure of the club. Yes, we all know that Lowe made some horrendos mistakes, but when he left we were still financially viable.The one point that gets me is people saying that they will not go to watch Saints as it will line Lowes pockets. Well that is simply crap.* Lowe is a paid Director. He is receiving no dividends from shares; there are no dividends being paid. Frankly he is a better option than De Lieu or Hoon and certainly Crouch.

 

Get real, unless you have shed loads of money to buy him out or gain enough support from other shareholders the situation is not going to change.

 

If you support Saints you go to watch the team not the chairman, so the message is quite simple: get behind the team, if you can afford too, go to St Marys go!!! The club needs your business!! The football being played is good to watch we just need a goal scorer!! COYR

I agree with the above. I often wonder at many of the posts on here, is it just blind dislike/hatred of one person that drives them?

 

The actions taken by Lowe since his return has been exactly what has been required. I cannot fault the current steps being taken considering the financial mess we are in. Anyone coming in needed to go down the same road and I would be happy if anyone was taking this same road. To me this is not about Lowe but the actions and directions that need to be taken. Where Lowe does feature strongly in my selection, is I cannot believe / trust that the others that have fronted up would actually be prepared to take such unpopular measures.

[wooley11]

Did you miss the bit about experience of football IN THIS COUNTRY?

 

I'm assuming you did, hence your mindless drivel

 

Just a few names for you to mull over while you come up some more thoughtless crap to help you bang your tuneless drum.

 

Scolari

Benitez

Mourinio

 

They seem to have done ok without previous experience of football in this country, I am sure in your mind that is somehow different.

[Wopper]

Some well thought out points SB. What I'm not sure I understand is the basis for the view that Pearson would not cope dealing with youngsters bearing in mind he has worked with England at many levels including the U21's where he was also caretaker manager for a while. It seems to be a convenient argument from the pro-Lowe / anti-Pearson camp that appears to lack any substance. Or is there evidence to suggest otherwise that I'm missing?

 

Overqualified and too uppity for Ruperts liking.

[Whitey Grandad]

Just a few names for you to mull over while you come up some more thoughtless crap to help you bang your tuneless drum.

 

Scolari

Benitez

Mourinio

 

They seem to have done ok without previous experience of football in this country, I am sure in your mind that is somehow different.

But they were all highly successful in other countries, whereas Jan....