To re-elect R J G Lowe - 94.95%

[Saint Billy]

To my mind, Lowes position hangs only on the support of Wilde. Wilde is obviously wobbling again proven by his lame excuse not to attend the AGM.

 

I am just hoping that this very strange alliance will come to and end soon and once and for all get Lowe out.

[saintjay77]

To my mind, Lowes position hangs only on the support of Wilde. Wilde is obviously wobbling again proven by his lame excuse not to attend the AGM.

 

I am just hoping that this very strange alliance will come to and end soon and once and for all get Lowe out.

 

think you are right on lowes postition and right about wilde wobbling which will end in yet another change.

 

think your wrong in the fact that lowe will be gone once an for all though. he will hang around like a bad smell for a long time to come unfortunatly.

 

but how much worse than the others is he now? I just wish they were all gone.

[Ponty]

I think it should be pointed out that Ponty does not represent the views of most mods on this site or the views of the vast majority of saints fans in general.

 

Merry Christmas.

 

Are you saying most fans think Mugabe is "an alright chap"?

 

Merry Christmas 'Stanley'. Have a good one.

[Thedelldays]

Are you saying most fans think Mugabe is "an alright chap"?

 

Merry Christmas 'Stanley'. Have a good one.

hey..

 

i notice you didnt have an issue with the "making peace" with adolf (the worst tyrant every) hitler analogy..?

[Ponty]

hey..

 

i notice you didnt have an issue with the "making peace" with adolf (the worst tyrant every) hitler analogy..?

Must have missed that one TDD, besides the Hitler analogy is so tired I don't think I would have bothered.

[um pahars]

hey..

 

i notice you didnt have an issue with the "making peace" with adolf (the worst tyrant every) hitler analogy..?

 

That really is Godwin's Law!!!!!!!!!!

 

Seems supermod can't be everywhere at once:rolleyes::rolleyes:

 

You can add Marshall hypocrite to the sanctimonious posse, Yee-ha.

[Ponty]

Have a truly happy Christmas UP. No, I mean that.

[saintjay77]

That really is Godwin's Law!!!!!!!!!!

 

Seems supermod can't be everywhere at once:rolleyes::rolleyes:

 

You can add Marshall hypocrite to the sanctimonious posse, Yee-ha.

 

Do you have a part time job as a clown or do you enjoy making yourself look like a pillock?

 

your comments, even with your little get out of jail card were not too clever and you resort to calling names to justify them

 

i agree on allot of things you say but on this your making yourself look a fool.

[um pahars]

Do you have a part time job as a clown or do you enjoy making yourself look like a pillock?

 

your comments, even with your little get out of jail card were not too clever and you resort to calling names to justify them

 

i agree on allot of things you say but on this your making yourself look a fool.

 

And who are you his wingman??

 

Come in Goose.:smt044:smt044

[um pahars]

Have a truly happy Christmas UP. No, I mean that.

 

I've never really gone in for personal attacks and criticism , particularly on the ether of an anonymous, geeky internet forum (pi5si5 takes and arguments aside of course, but not personal stufff), but have to say after our first ever spat yesterday, you are probably the only person who I woud probably wish an unhappy xmas on.

 

People have knocked you before and maybe I've been oblivious and ignorant as to why, but I always thought things like that were out of order, but by golly I can see why they have now.

[benjii]

So if you get made reduntant do you go round saying you got sacked? If your a contractor and your contract finishes are you sacked then?

 

I worked as a contractor for a few years and a few times the company decided they wernt going to renew the contract and there was always clauses that meant they could end the contract at various times as if it had run out completly. Not once did I say I had been sacked. But if people keep saying pearson was sacked it will become widly accepted that he was sacked and the amazing lowe bashing will continue for stuff that is simply not true. it doesnt do the argument for having a go at lowe any good at all IMO.

 

Isnt spin to take a fact and twist it a little to suit an adgenda? This is something Lowe does all the time and something we rightly have go about. yet it seems its ok to say pearson got sacked, WGS and lowe hated each other, Sturrock was sacked and it also seems ok to talk about Lowe and Mugabe in the same paragraph.

 

pedo = kiddy fiddler

 

Pearson was sacked you dinlo.

 

"Sack" is not a legal term, it's a term that means you got the boot. Pearson got the boot. Simple.

[benjii]

hitler got 99%!

 

 

Ooooohhh..... Ponty won't like that.

[saintjay77]

Pearson was sacked you dinlo.

 

"Sack" is not a legal term, it's a term that means you got the boot. Pearson got the boot. Simple.

 

Course he did.

[um pahars]

Course he did.

 

So why did he leave then??

[saintjay77]

So why did he leave then??

 

I wasnt there so can only go on what has been said on here and by the looks of it his contract wasnt renewed or the option to break it was taken. but either way those options were there as part of his contract.

 

not quite being told to clear your desk is it?

 

but what ever suits your agenda goes I suppose. Hey its an internet forum so go for your life.

[um pahars]

I wasnt there so can only go on what has been said on here and by the looks of it his contract wasnt renewed or the option to break it was taken. but either way those options were there as part of his contract.

 

not quite being told to clear your desk is it?

 

but what ever suits your agenda goes I suppose. Hey its an internet forum so go for your life.

 

His contract was not up for renewal, how many times do you have to be told that???

 

A break clause was invoked, a massive difference (but one that's lost on you).

 

So why do you think that break clause was invoked by Lowe?

 

a) Because Lowe wanted to bring his own man in?

 

b) Beacuse Pearson asked him to do it?

 

c) It was an administrative error?

 

d) Because the little contract fairies got in there overnight?

 

e) Crouch did it as his last act?

 

f) You can have f) to z) for your own little fantasy ideas, so feel free to embellish.

[saintjay77]

His contract was not up for renewal, how many times do you have to be told that???

 

A break clause was invoked, a massive difference (but one that's lost on you).

 

So why do you think that break clause was invoked by Lowe?

 

a) Because Lowe wanted to bring his own man in?

 

b) Beacuse Pearson asked him to do it?

 

c) It was an administrative error?

 

d) Because the little contract fairies got in there overnight?

 

e) Crouch did it as his last act?

 

f) You can have f) to z) for your own little fantasy ideas, so feel free to embellish.

 

you seem to be the only one who knows the ins and outs of his contract and your stating things as fact. thing is we have heard facts from StDavid, Tommac, Fulthorp, PA, Crouch, Lowe, Wilde and LM that have all been a load of gumf so why should your facts be any different?

 

why and how Lowe did it is fair game to get hacked off about. the guy deserved a chance but lowe thought he knew best. he has thought he has known best on loads of things and IMO he has got less than 50% of those things right which is never in a million years enough to be a success at anything.

 

going through 10 managers is a problem but saying he sacked 10 managers is donkey balls.

 

Have a go at him for his faults and I am with you but spin and make things up to have a go at and your as bad as Lowe himself.

[um pahars]

you seem to be the only one who knows the ins and outs of his contract and your stating things as fact. thing is we have heard facts from StDavid, Tommac, Fulthorp, PA, Crouch, Lowe, Wilde and LM that have all been a load of gumf so why should your facts be any different?

 

why and how Lowe did it is fair game to get hacked off about. the guy deserved a chance but lowe thought he knew best. he has thought he has known best on loads of things and IMO he has got less than 50% of those things right which is never in a million years enough to be a success at anything.

 

going through 10 managers is a problem but saying he sacked 10 managers is donkey balls.

 

Have a go at him for his faults and I am with you but spin and make things up to have a go at and your as bad as Lowe himself.

 

Forget all that rubbish you've posted there, and just give me your view as to why Lowe invoked the break clause.

 

Many, including myself, believe that he did it solely so that he could bring someone else in (I'd call that being elbowed out, sacked, put out to grass, terminated, released, whatever) as he believed they would do a better job.

 

I've got nothing against that principle as Lowe is the man in charge and will have to live or die by that decision, but let's not try and dress it up as something else.

 

(as for being ITK on this one, let's just say ogot most of this info first hand).

[SW11_Saint]

So if you get made reduntant do you go round saying you got sacked? If your a contractor and your contract finishes are you sacked then?

 

I worked as a contractor for a few years and a few times the company decided they wernt going to renew the contract and there was always clauses that meant they could end the contract at various times as if it had run out completly. Not once did I say I had been sacked. But if people keep saying pearson was sacked it will become widly accepted that he was sacked and the amazing lowe bashing will continue for stuff that is simply not true. it doesnt do the argument for having a go at lowe any good at all IMO.

 

Isnt spin to take a fact and twist it a little to suit an adgenda? This is something Lowe does all the time and something we rightly have go about. yet it seems its ok to say pearson got sacked, WGS and lowe hated each other, Sturrock was sacked and it also seems ok to talk about Lowe and Mugabe in the same paragraph.

 

pedo = kiddy fiddler

No, but you might go around saying "I've lost my job!" ("...and not only that, but the ****** they've given it to doesn't seem qualified for the post." - but that's a different discussion!).

 

Rather than "Lowe bashing", I prefer to call it "accountability". Comes with the post I'm afraid - if he wants to make 'revolutionary changes' for, what seems to me, no good reason, then he has to be accountable for how that change works out. I'd say that's more than fair, if we were top of the league, I'd be praising him as a genius.

 

I haven't really commented on the other individuals you name, but frankly on an Internet bulletin board I'd say anything was pretty much fair game!

 

PS I knew you meant paedo - was just trying to subtely point out how annoying it can be to be pedantic...

[Ponty]

I've never really gone in for personal attacks and criticism , particularly on the ether of an anonymous, geeky internet forum (pi5si5 takes and arguments aside of course, but not personal stufff), but have to say after our first ever spat yesterday, you are probably the only person who I woud probably wish an unhappy xmas on.

 

People have knocked you before and maybe I've been oblivious and ignorant as to why, but I always thought things like that were out of order, but by golly I can see why they have now.

Oh noes!

 

Really, you could do with reading back through this thread and seeing that I'm not the only person who shares my opinion.

 

Best wishes to you and yours.

[landford.saint]

Regardless of who said what to whom about which analogy. Ther is only one real quetion.

 

HOW DO WE GET RID OF LOWE?

[SW11_Saint]

By the way everyone... finally the hysteria around this "Zimbabwe analogy" peaked my interest, and I went back to see what could have caused such outrage...

 

Shock! Horror! - a sensible and relevant analogy by Alpine about the power of vote abstention, and a totally innocuous follow-up comment by Um simply saying that it was a reasonable analogy. STRING ‘EM UP!

 

Good lord! Will those of you doing cartwheels of outrage please calm down (or get your job applications into The Daily Mail ASAP!).

 

Enough now, stop making a mountain out of a molehill, and let's draw a line under that particular issue, and get back to the topic at hand...

 

PS Merry Xmas everyone! (except Lowe & Co. obviously…)

[Guan 2.0]

What this boils down to is Lowe having the majority of the popular vote, and those who don't hold him in high regard trying to spin it in any other way.

 

Once more, socialist superfan Richard Chorley grabs an opporutunity to make a ill informed gesture, apropos of nothing, whilst others (who are really old enough to know better) also joined in, to make their cause seem more pantomime than politik (on an important issue too). I don't know why they are celbrating, since their actions acting their shoe size rather than age, seem to play directly into Lowe's description of them as "The Lunatic Fringe".

 

And what, in real terms, did it achieve? Will the world stop spinning tomorrow, or even start to stop? Lowe will be in a stronger position than ever. And those who acted up today may have a warm feeling in their egos tommorow when they look for their names in the local press, but they have simply made themselves look foolish, and shown just how irrelevent to the position of power they truly are.

 

 

First sentence is absolute crap , if there ever was a popular vote by supporters of SFC Lowe would be lucky to get 10%.

At the moment many tolerate him because they see no alternative BUT NO WAY is that a popular vote

 

Not sure how that is crap my friend, The definition of the popular vote is this, The result of the votes of the eligible voters.

 

In fact the statement you made just seems to highlight the problem I mentioned in my first paragraph, of people who don't hold Lowe in high regard trying to spin the result in any way they can...

[saintjay77]

Forget all that rubbish you've posted there, and just give me your view as to why Lowe invoked the break clause.

 

Many, including myself, believe that he did it solely so that he could bring someone else in (I'd call that being elbowed out, sacked, put out to grass, terminated, released, whatever) as he believed they would do a better job.

 

I've got nothing against that principle as Lowe is the man in charge and will have to live or die by that decision, but let's not try and dress it up as something else.

 

(as for being ITK on this one, let's just say ogot most of this info first hand).

 

to answer your question and ignore your other rubbish I agree that Lowe wanted his own man in but if your contract has a get out at a certain time and the company choose to excersize that get out then its still hardly being sacked no matter how bad it feels.

[saintjay77]

No, but you might go around saying "I've lost my job!" ("...and not only that, but the ****** they've given it to doesn't seem qualified for the post." - but that's a different discussion!).

 

Rather than "Lowe bashing", I prefer to call it "accountability". Comes with the post I'm afraid - if he wants to make 'revolutionary changes' for, what seems to me, no good reason, then he has to be accountable for how that change works out. I'd say that's more than fair, if we were top of the league, I'd be praising him as a genius.

 

I haven't really commented on the other individuals you name, but frankly on an Internet bulletin board I'd say anything was pretty much fair game!

 

PS I knew you meant paedo - was just trying to subtely point out how annoying it can be to be pedantic...

 

 

I agree with all of that totally. but then its not dressing any situation up for anything more than it is. which is my point. Lowe's PR machine is forever picking out the juiciest bits that can (try to) make him look like something he is clearly not and twisting words and facts and we all go nuts about it. the vote percentage that showed he had 95% support is 1 example and is completly laughable. But does that mean the anti-lowe lot should use the same tactics?

 

Lowe got a name for himself for sacking managers when he only sacked 1 i think. the reasons each one left have been talked about on and on but still he has a tag for sacking managers. no wonder we cant get rid of the guy when all we have a go at him for is stuff that aint true!!! the people that need to be convinced he is not the right man for our club are also the people that accept resignations so they can hardly get rid of him for sacking people either. they deal in the facts and while we deal in rumours why should they listen to us?

 

anyway i dont like falling out with fellow saints and i hope i havnt. its xmas eve and im shattered from watchin the panto with me kids.

 

hope you all have a good crimbo

[CLOTH EARS]

What this boils down to is Lowe having the majority of the popular vote, and those who don't hold him in high regard trying to spin it in any other way.

 

Once more, socialist superfan Richard Chorley grabs an opporutunity to make a ill informed gesture, apropos of nothing, whilst others (who are really old enough to know better) also joined in, to make their cause seem more pantomime than politik (on an important issue too). I don't know why they are celbrating, since their actions acting their shoe size rather than age, seem to play directly into Lowe's description of them as "The Lunatic Fringe".

 

And what, in real terms, did it achieve? Will the world stop spinning tomorrow, or even start to stop? Lowe will be in a stronger position than ever. And those who acted up today may have a warm feeling in their egos tommorow when they look for their names in the local press, but they have simply made themselves look foolish, and shown just how irrelevent to the position of power they truly are.

 

Will the men in white coats please come and get this guy he has clearly lost the plot!!!

 

PS Are you in Ruperts lodge? wink wink!

[SW11_Saint]

anyway i dont like falling out with fellow saints and i hope i havnt. its xmas eve and im shattered from watchin the panto with me kids.

 

hope you all have a good crimbo

Don't think we'll ever agree with Lowe's record on 'sacking' managers, but there you go.

 

Anyway, have a happy Xmas with your family, and let's all hope for a better 2009 for the Saints and us fans!

[Wilko]

I did not vote with my 200 shares.

 

Meh.

[Tom28]

You mean apart from essentially sacking Pearson (1.23 points per game) for purely egoistical reasons and replacing him with a Dutch amateur (0.92 points per game)?

 

I think you will find that Nigel Pearson was in charge of 14 games for Saints. He won 3, drew 4 and lost 7, a win percentage of 21.43% and 0.93 Points Per Game. All that with a team that had been together for years (give or take the natural comings and goings that any football club goes through) and had plenty of experience.

 

JP has coached 26 games, won 5, drawn 8, lost 13. A win percentage of 19.23% and 0.88 Points Per Game (by the way, when you posted DM, it was 0.92% as you correctly pointed out). And all that after shipping out every player with any experience and starting with a brand new team.

 

Anyone who thinks getting rid of Pearson for Poortvliet was a massive error either has a selective memory, or is mental. You choose.

 

And Pearson wasn't sacked. His contract wasn't renewed.

 

Adriansfc - your original post was spot on by the way.

[70's Mike]

I think you will find that Nigel Pearson was in charge of 14 games for Saints. He won 3, drew 4 and lost 7, a win percentage of 21.43% and 0.93 Points Per Game. All that with a team that had been together for years (give or take the natural comings and goings that any football club goes through) and had plenty of experience.

 

JP has coached 26 games, won 5, drawn 8, lost 13. A win percentage of 19.23% and 0.88 Points Per Game (by the way, when you posted DM, it was 0.92% as you correctly pointed out). And all that after shipping out every player with any experience and starting with a brand new team.

 

Anyone who thinks getting rid of Pearson for Poortvliet was a massive error either has a selective memory, or is mental. You choose.

 

And Pearson wasn't sacked. His contract wasn't renewed.

 

Adriansfc - your original post was spot on by the way.

 

ONE question why was it not renewed

[Anders]

I think you will find that Nigel Pearson was in charge of 14 games for Saints. He won 3, drew 4 and lost 7, a win percentage of 21.43% and 0.93 Points Per Game. All that with a team that had been together for years (give or take the natural comings and goings that any football club goes through) and had plenty of experience.

 

JP has coached 26 games, won 5, drawn 8, lost 13. A win percentage of 19.23% and 0.88 Points Per Game (by the way, when you posted DM, it was 0.92% as you correctly pointed out). And all that after shipping out every player with any experience and starting with a brand new team.

 

Anyone who thinks getting rid of Pearson for Poortvliet was a massive error either has a selective memory, or is mental. You choose.

 

And Pearson wasn't sacked. His contract wasn't renewed.

 

Adriansfc - your original post was spot on by the way.

 

Think you will find that it was won 3, drew 7 and lost 4. He didn't even pick the team for one of those losses so it is a little bit harsh to include that, still that changes it to 1.14 ppg..

[Tom28]

His contract was not up for renewal, how many times do you have to be told that???

 

A break clause was invoked, a massive difference (but one that's lost on you).

 

So why do you think that break clause was invoked by Lowe?

 

a) Because Lowe wanted to bring his own man in?

 

b) Beacuse Pearson asked him to do it?

 

c) It was an administrative error?

 

d) Because the little contract fairies got in there overnight?

 

e) Crouch did it as his last act?

 

f) You can have f) to z) for your own little fantasy ideas, so feel free to embellish.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/may/30/southampton

 

um - if its a choice between taking your un-educated opinion on this, or a respectable UK broadsheets' opinion, I go with the latter.

 

maybe you will find a problem with the Guardian being 'respectable', so how about the BBC?

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/s/southampton/7427097.stm

[St Landrew]

94% is almost exactly the figure that both Radio Hampshire and The Saints Web returned in their independent polls to keep Nigel Pearson on at the end of last season. It's a loose connection, but it is complete reversal of the fans opinions about those that run the club.

 

I see nothing other than complete and abject failure. But there is half the season to go, so we might as well draw out the agony [although I'm weaning myself off Saints surprisingly well, and becoming rather more objective], just to see if SFC can preserve its Championship status. And that's actually becoming a laugh.

[Tom28]

Think you will find that it was won 3, drew 7 and lost 4. He didn't even pick the team for one of those losses so it is a little bit harsh to include that, still that changes it to 1.14 ppg..

 

Yeah you're right, apologies, I read the wrong column. Still, my argument doesn't change on the basis of three points. There is still not a significant difference between NP and JP to warrant the kind of astounding declarations on this forum that NP was our saviour and should never have been replaced.

[Whitey Grandad]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/may/30/southampton

 

um - if its a choice between taking your un-educated opinion on this, or a respectable UK broadsheets' opinion, I go with the latter.

 

maybe you will find a problem with the Guardian being 'respectable', so how about the BBC?

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/s/southampton/7427097.stm

I think you'll find that these organisations are merely repeating the contents of a press release issued by the club, but this debate is academic. Pearson's contract could have been extended, indeed many have talked of this being a longer contract with a 'break clause'. Whatever the reasons, this alternative choice has turned out to be a colossal mistake with disastrous financial implications.

[um pahars]

I think you will find that Nigel Pearson was in charge of 14 games for Saints. He won 3, drew 4 and lost 7, a win percentage of 21.43% and 0.93 Points Per Game.

 

There is an argument as to whether it was 13 or 14 games (given the fact he rocked up the day before the Plymouth game and D & G were effectively preparing the team), but either way his points per game ratio was never 0.93 PPG.

 

So at that point of talking bollcox, the rest of your views go out the window.

 

As for his contract not being renewed, well if you want to cary on in a minority of about 4, then of course you're entitled to do that.

 

Holding and espousing a different viewpoint is one thing, just making stuff up and talking bolokoks is entirely different.:rolleyes:

[Greenridge]

Yeah you're right, apologies, I read the wrong column. Still, my argument doesn't change on the basis of three points. There is still not a significant difference between NP and JP to warrant the kind of astounding declarations on this forum that NP was our saviour and should never have been replaced.

 

You seem to continually forget elementary facts when making your posts eh? It's convenient to omit the freefall the club was in when NP arrived and how he had to start running from day one and arrest the alarming slide down the league with a team of zero confidence before he could turn things around. Whereas JP had a complete pre-season with 'his' team starting anew. Hardly the same is it but don't let that obscure your blinkered opinion.

[70's Mike]

Not sure how that is crap my friend, The definition of the popular vote is this, The result of the votes of the eligible voters.

 

In fact the statement you made just seems to highlight the problem I mentioned in my first paragraph, of people who don't hold Lowe in high regard trying to spin the result in any way they can...

 

THE result was a % of those who voted NOT THOSE ELIGIBLE to vote.

big difference