Would you BOYCOTT? Ways to get rid of Lowe and the board

[Thedelldays]

lowe could have been on to a winner really..

 

he could have come back..spelt out very clear what was needed..ie financial prudence etc...BUT have kept pearson and got on with what he is doing...quitely..

 

but NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOo

[SaintRobbie]

Indeed. If there are 24 people who are prepared to boycott and instead donate the £25 to the flyby - job done.

 

....and it did get coverage too....

 

http://www.sthu.co.uk/times.html

http://www.sthu.co.uk/d_mail.html

http://www.sthu.co.uk/d_express.html

 

Not to mention numerous articles in the Echo, The Pink and a TV interview on Meridian. For a non telivised game, camera crews also were present to cover the event.

 

In itself an air protest doesn't solve problems, but it is a way of galvanising support and getting valuable media exposure.

The only problem with doing something for the United game, is that there is not enough time to lobby the media and make it as effective as possible.

 

 

This worked brilliantly last time. Has my full support. I remember the whole ground cheering as the plane circled and their part of SMS could see it!

 

The message needs to be succinct and clear. The media love it and what's more its cheap and gives mass exposure.

 

It also defeated Lowe's attempts to forcibly remove banners from fans entering SMS.

[Cabrone]

I've already mentioned a boycott one or twice in the last few seasons, due to the complete disenchantment most of us have had with SFC. Now it has probably never been required more. There is no argument with SFC, just the present Board, and the policy deciders especially.

 

If you are really serious about a boycott, you have to keep at them until Lowe and Co resign. As of this moment, he knows this will never happen. It's a complete pipe dream, and he is completely safe. But several empty stadiums, more importantly accompanied by an agreed statement from ordinary fans that suggests that they will return, en masse, when Rupert either resigns, or promises to go at the earliest opportunity - say within 60 days, will have a huge effect. And if he doesn't, then the boycotting begins again until he does.

 

If you really want Rupert out, this will work 100%. But you must be united in your approach and execution.

 

Exactly, you have to be ready to apply huge financial pressure and grind the shareholders down till they get rid of him. Be prepared for a massive fight.

 

The other 'one off' suggestions on here are just fluff which Lowe and his faceless backers will laugh at.

[Johnny Bognor]

Exactly, you have to be ready to apply huge financial pressure and grind the shareholders down till they get rid of him. Be prepared for a massive fight.

 

The other 'one off' suggestions on here are just fluff which Lowe and his faceless backers will laugh at.

 

The one thing they would take notice of is ST renewals. If these were withheld (as opposed to withdrawn) this would send a clear message. 2000 STHs witholding their renewal is placing a price of £1m for the removal of Lowe - in the state we're in, they would have to take notice. Having said this, getting 1000 people to comply would be difficult.

[Charlie Wayman]

There are no legitimate ways of ridding ourselves of Lowe, so the only alternative is to rid Lowe of us.

 

The club is rumored to be close to administration because it has no way to repay it's debts if Barclay's calls in their money soon to protect it's own liquidity and is running at a trading loss year-on-year which cannot be balanced by the simple expedient of selling one or two players. To continue in business we will need to sell 4 or 5 players per year £500-750K range) just to meet annual losses but we cannot go on doing that for 20 years whilst the Stadium mortgage winds down.

 

We fans might as well stay away just to speed up administration, to get this whole messy business resolved once and for all. Whoever buys the club in the administration period will still need to service the £27.9 million debt or settle it outright. If Lowe hasn't got the money and cannot persuade Barclay's to stay involved, where else would he get the money from? In these circumstances he would not be considered a realistic bidder, so he isn't going to get it for £1 as many fear. On the downside, nor would any of the other usual suspects.

 

My guess is that the administration period would run down without a serious buyer emerging signalling the demise of our club as we know it.

[St. Jason]

Now I'm sorry but I think this is just ridiculous. This game could prove to be one of the most important of the season so far. The kind of game that if we win we stay up, we lose we go down.

 

Surely the whole point of the boycott would to be to save Southampton football club? If we boycott this game, the players would almost certainly lose moral when they need it most- when the need a lot of backing to give us the chance to stay up.

 

 

You mean just like the last "Forest, the most important game of the season" where 27k fans turned up yet the team forgot to turn up?

 

With this team, management and board its now obvious that it makes no difference if 27 or 27,000 fans turn up the result is the same!

 

Boycott a game, get the date published on here, in the Echo, TUI, even do a leaflet drop, give fans 5 weeks notice ie. boycott shef utd, 03-02-2009, that way people can make a choice and not buy a ticket and make their proptest!

[SP Saint]

A mass boycott is indeed the answer....but alas there are too many people on here (and further afield) who fail to grasp the "no pain, no gain" concept - it is a sad fact that we (the fans) need to do something that goes against what the heart tells us we shouldn't be doing.

 

We need to take one step backwards to go several steps forward. Why are there people who can't see that? To say that they couldn't hurt the club they love is a complete false economy.

 

They are ironically hurting the club by this sycophantic head-in-sand stance. (just watch the responses to prove this point)

 

 

The few dozen posters on here may have trouble grasping the concept but far away in the real world people HAVE stopped going to matches. That is something Lowe cannot deny (even if he wants to pretend it's purely due to the economic downturn.)

 

In the end it will be his downfall.

[Thedelldays]

The few dozen posters on here may have trouble grasping the concept but far away in the real world people HAVE stopped going to matches. That is something Lowe cannot deny (even if he wants to pretend it's purely due to the economic downturn.)

 

In the end it will be his downfall.

yep

 

and up until a week or so ago...got nothing but crap for it and actually ridiculed at games...

 

 

 

EDIT - just been looking at past threads..and some of those NOW saying we should boycott were happy to "dish it out" to fans already doing so for a while now..

 

lol

Edited 27 December, 2008 by Thedelldays

[Thedelldays]

one of the deputy heads when I was at school was one of the senior stewards at the Dell....I remember him saying when branfoot was here that the only way to force change was with mass boycotting...it worked..

 

money talks to these people and is the only answer really...

[saintedwill]

I've voted to boycott an entire game, as I think only missing the 1st or second half means we're still paying to get in the ground so would not affect Lowe, Barclays, Wilde etc!!!

 

 

True, but the point of any boycott should be symbolic and not financial.

 

So it should be done when we're next on tv (we don't do well on the telly anyway, so you won't miss much) to embarrass Lowe in front of an audience.

 

I like CB Fry's idea best and hope it would work, but second to that I'd like to see many Lowe Out type banners across different parts of the ground all being waved in synchronisation with a banner being flown across the stadium, five minutes before the game starts.

 

Then at the start of the second half, as soon as the whistle goes I'd like to see as many people as possible get out of their seats and walk out.

[St Paul]

 

 

 

Then at the start of the second half, as soon as the whistle goes I'd like to see as many people as possible get out of their seats and walk out.

 

I agree with this, it would make a powerful statement, and could not be spun any other way by Lowe and the Club...........

[St. Jason]

True, but the point of any boycott should be symbolic and not financial.

 

So it should be done when we're next on tv (we don't do well on the telly anyway, so you won't miss much) to embarrass Lowe in front of an audience.

 

I like CB Fry's idea best and hope it would work, but second to that I'd like to see many Lowe Out type banners across different parts of the ground all being waved in synchronisation with a banner being flown across the stadium, five minutes before the game starts.

 

Then at the start of the second half, as soon as the whistle goes I'd like to see as many people as possible get out of their seats and walk out.

 

 

I do like the idea of everyone agreeing to leave the stadium on the 77 min of the man utd game but i see 2 potential problems with this -

 

1. 77 min saints leading 2-1 (dream on) are you still going to get the same numbers leave?

 

2. 77 min utd leading 0-3, Lowe would put any walkout down to the result!

 

Boycott an entire game, he has no excuses!!!

[Northant Saint]

You mean just like the last "Forest, the most important game of the season" where 27k fans turned up yet the team forgot to turn up?

 

With this team, management and board its now obvious that it makes no difference if 27 or 27,000 fans turn up the result is the same!

 

Boycott a game, get the date published on here, in the Echo, TUI, even do a leaflet drop, give fans 5 weeks notice ie. boycott shef utd, 03-02-2009, that way people can make a choice and not buy a ticket and make their proptest!

 

yeah we lost, but does that mean we should stop trying?

[chi saint]

Whilst I appreciate this is a very active forum, I think any boycott would need to be managed via the media eg Echo and so therefore be well publicised.

 

Undoubtably as a result Lowe and Co would summon all there PR resources in terms of 'stay aways' letting the club down.

 

I don't doubt he would seek to undermine such a protest with a play on our feelings of guilt...at least my feelings anyway ha ha

[saintwarwick]

I am totally in favour of a mass boycott but it must be very well publicised and very well organised. Preferably with a big demonstration either outside the ground or in the City Centre. Why not approach Lawrie Mac and Leon Crouch for their support.

 

I don't think Crouch would agree as he was the one that asked for fans to get behind the team.

[saintedwill]

I do like the idea of everyone agreeing to leave the stadium on the 77 min of the man utd game but i see 2 potential problems with this -

 

1. 77 min saints leading 2-1 (dream on) are you still going to get the same numbers leave?

 

2. 77 min utd leading 0-3, Lowe would put any walkout down to the result!

 

Boycott an entire game, he has no excuses!!!

 

 

that's why I'd suggest leaving on 45 mins at the start of the second half.

 

It would mean that symbolically the whistle becomes more than a signal for the restart of the game and acts as a point for us to speak up together against Lowe.

 

Where would the cameras look at the start of the 2nd half if as soon as the whistle went, everyone started to walk out?

[rooney]

You lost the audience at this point

 

Correct, but the rest is ideal.

[chi saint]

If and it's a pretty big IF things are going to happen whether it be a boycott, walk out, mass pitch invasion etc it really needs to be during a televised game. Simple!

 

Then and only then would the wider media possibly take an interest and in turn would the pressure mount on Rupes and the board.

 

Otherwise any action is going to be reported third hand and would be seen as a local problem and one which could be quickly forgotten.

[RobM]

As I type this only 282 people have voted of which 54 voted they would not boycott. So how much impact are the other 228 missing people going to have? Bad weather or a week day game would have more impact.

 

This is the problem that many need to realise... This forum does not represent the whole fan base, not even a small percentage. There are 15k others out there who will still be there each home game.

 

I'm all for some sort or demonstration, but it's going to take hard work and people extracting themselves from their keyboard to be effective. It needs publicity and support away from this forum BEFORE any action. Otherwise it will be branded the minority lunatic fringe all over again. This forum does not represent the fan base. Get out there and do something if it really matters to you!

[Saint Fan CaM]

Boycott ain't going to do it.

 

First time round when "STAND UP IF YOU WANT LOWE OUT" was sung and 80% of the stadium stood up and applauded, the hairs on the back of my neck stood up - very emotional moment and one to be remembered. This is the way to do it again - at half time AND at full-time - IMO.

[Thedelldays]

Boycott ain't going to do it.

 

First time round when "STAND UP IF YOU WANT LOWE OUT" was sung and 80% of the stadium stood up and applauded, the hairs on the back of my neck stood up - very emotional moment and one to be remembered. This is the way to do it again - at half time AND at full-time - IMO.

i remember last time

 

im sure it was against burnley at home..the game after arry left and there was around 25k there with so many standing up...you knew then it was the beginning of the end..

[mattbrennan]

I can see it now. Mass boycott followed by Lowe announcing we have settled for administration. Blames the fans as they boycotted the game losing more money than the club could afford. He then snaps up the club on the cheap.

[NickG]

no the beginning of the end was Wilde deciding to buy shares.

 

If that hadn't have happened Lowe would have sat it out.

[Thedelldays]

no the beginning of the end was Wilde deciding to buy shares.

 

If that hadn't have happened Lowe would have sat it out.

 

oh...so now it is ok to question wilde..there was a few of us who did so the first time around..only to be litterally laughed at, shouted down and in some cases banned from saintsforever...hence why certain other sites popped up...

 

I wanted lowe gone back then but not at any costs..and those predictions of his return have clearly come home to roost...

 

lets not make the same mistakes again...eh..?

[NickG]

sorry DD don't get your reply so guess means you didn't get my post!

 

point I was trying to make was that the stand up protest didn't get rid of Lowe, he would have stayed for any number of such protests -what got rid of him was someone buying enough shares to force the issue -hence me believing protests are counter productive now

[Wes Tender]

Currently 80% of the fan base represented here is in favour of some form of protest or other, with over half in favour of the most drastic but most effective option, the mass boycott.

[NickG]

to be fair though 163 isn't mass!

[Wes Tender]

It is a poll, Nick. There is as much potential to vote against as for, if people felt so inclined. The poll wasn't added until quite recently and many might be elsewhere over the holiday period.

 

Are you saying that you think that it is unrepresentative of the views of the fan base as a whole?

[NickG]

yes. Dont think a boycott would get big support (crowds will continue to drop due to crap results etc but don;t think ground will empty)

 

Serious questions-

 

what exactly will it seek to achieve

and how will it achieve that

[RobM]

I agree with NickG entirely. As per my previous post, 241 (as it stands now) fans in favour of a boycott of some form does not represent the entire fan base that can be found at St.Marys each home game (15k+ on an average week). It doesn't even cover the travelling away fans who follow Saints around the country every other week!

 

I also agree 100% with NickG's point about what really made a difference last time around. It was not the protests, nor the chants, nor the fly-by protests, nor the negative thoughts posted on an internet forum. This achieved no more than some defensive words in the press and OS and a branding of 'the lunatic fringe'.

 

The only thing that made a real difference was somebody buying enough shares to oust Lowe. Lowe went when and only when it was clear he would lose the vote at the AGM. Had Judas two-faced Wilde not done this and had Crouch not done the same, Lowe would have not been removed.

 

So the morale of the story is if you want Lowe gone, you (we!) need enough shares to call an AGM and enough shares or enough support to out-vote Lowe. The only other way is a total buyout including all debt's being wiped, which is what it would take for Lowe to voluntarily stand down.

[TijuanaTim]

Ain't there to boycott, but would not boycott...kinda cutting y'nose t'spite y'face. We would hurt Saints more than help.

 

There is not the right option up there as I would gladly abuse anything from pompers + a lot of other muppets. Maybe there should be 'Wouldn't abuse Southampton people'

[Chez]

Currently 80% of the fan base represented here is in favour of some form of protest or other, with over half in favour of the most drastic but most effective option, the mass boycott.

 

how many of the people on here actually go to games anyway?

[Wes Tender]

I agree with NickG entirely. As per my previous post, 241 (as it stands now) fans in favour of a boycott of some form does not represent the entire fan base that can be found at St.Marys each home game (15k+ on an average week). It doesn't even cover the travelling away fans who follow Saints around the country every other week!

 

I also agree 100% with NickG's point about what really made a difference last time around. It was not the protests, nor the chants, nor the fly-by protests, nor the negative thoughts posted on an internet forum. This achieved no more than some defensive words in the press and OS and a branding of 'the lunatic fringe'.

 

The only thing that made a real difference was somebody buying enough shares to oust Lowe. Lowe went when and only when it was clear he would lose the vote at the AGM. Had Judas two-faced Wilde not done this and had Crouch not done the same, Lowe would have not been removed.

 

So the morale of the story is if you want Lowe gone, you (we!) need enough shares to call an AGM and enough shares or enough support to out-vote Lowe. The only other way is a total buyout including all debt's being wiped, which is what it would take for Lowe to voluntarily stand down.

 

Total and utter rubbish. You have absolutely no basis for believing that this poll is unrepresentative of the wider feelings outside of this forum.

 

The difference between now and then is that before the club had parachute money to support it, whereas now the money from the gate receipts is virtually the only source of revenue apart from player sales.

 

As a result, a mass boycott would have Lowe and the current board gone within days. Even if Lowe was obstinate, either his cronies would tell him the game was up, or else the bank would. Simple.

 

And it isn't the morale of the story; it is the moral. Which even then was incorrect, as I've already said that the mass boycott is a practical alternative.

[alpine_saint]

Well, I think that the time has come. We've had him forced back on us by the Quisling Wilde's alliance with Lowe and his cronies and there is nothing that can be done by way of an EGM to rid us of him through the shareholdings unless Wilde changes horses yet again.

 

For me, the manner in which Lowe thrust aside any dissent at the AGM to the way that he has been doing things since his return was the last straw. He was his usual arrogant self and had not one ounce of humility in his body. His mad experiment with Poortvliet has not worked, it is plain that JP is totally out of his depth and on the face of it Lowe will not dismiss him, as it will mean having to admit that he was wrong in appointing him.

 

So we can sit tight as we head inexorably towards the third division, or we can do something about it.

 

If we each take our own action in isolation, we will not achieve much, or at least not very quickly. If we act together, we are the most potent of weapons, as the dire financial position we are in means that the income generated by us paying for tickets is now the single most important source of revenue the club has. They need a certain number of bums on seats at each home match, or the overdraught increases.

 

A mass boycott is IMO the surest way to bring the quickest results. Even if Lowe obstinately refuses to budge, the threat of continued action would force him to resign sooner or later. But the possibility exists that Wilde or Lowe's cronies would tell him to go and it wouldn't be long before the bank threatened to pull the plug either.

 

The purpose of this thread is to examine all the ideas for protests on one thread and to attempt to gauge the support for such actions and to fix a date when they would take place. If agreed, then it will require volunteers to help organise and the press would have to be notified for maximum publicity and to notify all of the fan base that don't come on here.

 

If you posted an idea or suggestion on another thread, could you please repost it here?

 

Your thoughts....

 

I advocated a boycott to get rid of Lowe first time around. Amazing how the whole idea is more respectable this time around.......

 

Gate revenue is the only language he understands, and you can be damn sure that Barclays understand it too.

[NickG]

Total and utter rubbish. You have absolutely no basis for believing that this poll is unrepresentative of the wider feelings outside of this forum.

 

The difference between now and then is that before the club had parachute money to support it, whereas now the money from the gate receipts is virtually the only source of revenue apart from player sales.

 

As a result, a mass boycott would have Lowe and the current board gone within days. Even if Lowe was obstinate, either his cronies would tell him the game was up, or else the bank would. Simple.

 

And it isn't the morale of the story; it is the moral. Which even then was incorrect, as I've already said that the mass boycott is a practical alternative.

 

1) I would be very surprised if there was support for mass boycott

2) those who went today probably quite enjoyed it

3) didn't hear anything negative about board/club in ground -think there would be at least some anti-lowe songs before boycott considered

4) as posted earlier don't think there is any logic to it having any effect what so ever and may have negative effect to what you seek

[Wes Tender]

1) I would be very surprised if there was support for mass boycott

 

Then you might well be very surprised

 

2) those who went today probably quite enjoyed it

 

I "quite" enjoyed it. Apart from another wasted opportunity for 3 points for a home win. I've only seen one of those so far in over half a season.

 

3) didn't hear anything negative about board/club in ground -think there would be at least some anti-lowe songs before boycott considered

 

There were the beginnings of a Swing Lowe chant in the Northam. I believe that it won't be long before the chants and protests start if things don't improve. We are only just in the drop zone now and the teams above are beginning to open up a gap. I reckon that the next home defeat will be the key.

 

4) as posted earlier don't think there is any logic to it having any effect what so ever and may have negative effect to what you seek

 

Why? Getting rid of the divisive element running the club will be a negative?

[NickG]

no getting rid of Lowe / Crouch and Wilde would be very positive, but a campaign without either mass support or success would be negative.

 

Appreciate you feel it would get support but just think you are miles away from what would happen at the moment.

 

But how will it succeed? Lowe won't step down and as I have posted above don't believe major shareholders will be influenced.

[NickG]

and 32% on here still won't boycott, would need a huge swing in public opinion to make it even noticeable, suggest forget it and save up for shares!

[70's Mike]

no getting rid of Lowe / Crouch and Wilde would be very positive, but a campaign without either mass support or success would be negative.

 

Appreciate you feel it would get support but just think you are miles away from what would happen at the moment.

 

But how will it succeed? Lowe won't step down and as I have posted above don't believe major shareholders will be influenced.

 

re last paragraph not sure if some of them would like it if protest is outside as they are going in for their free lunch before getting their free programme to read in their free seat , not forgetting their free drinks.

How come i get nothing free as a shareholder?

[NickG]

agree but would probably give them all a seige mentality and bond them tighter!

[70's Mike]

agree but would probably give them all a seige mentality and bond them tighter!

 

do not think that is possible with Ruperts group, he must have some good photos of the rest of the spineless ones

[Delmary]

do not think that is possible with Ruperts group' date=' he must have some good photos of the rest of the spineless ones[/quote']

 

 

Mr Withers far right with 4.00% share holding

 

 

Mr Wilde with 16.46% share holding

 

 

Michael Richards with 3.11% share holding.

 

 

Guy Askham with 3.99% share holding

Edited 28 December, 2008 by Delmary

[alpine_saint]

and 32% on here still won't boycott, would need a huge swing in public opinion to make it even noticeable, suggest forget it and save up for shares!

 

You become an even bigger toadying sycophant every day.

[NickG]

You become an even bigger toadying sycophant every day.

 

read the thread. fool

[SFC Forever]

Excuse me for being a mite dumb gentlemen, but

Who is going to buy shares that in a month or two will be worthless.Unless we had someone with readies available they would, in my humble opinion, be throwing their hard earned away.

[Minstral Man]

And your solution for an alternative? The solution is qute simple put up the cash to buy the club out, are you offering to put your hand in your pocket!

[saintjay77]

no getting rid of Lowe / Crouch and Wilde would be very positive, but a campaign without either mass support or success would be negative.

 

Appreciate you feel it would get support but just think you are miles away from what would happen at the moment.

 

But how will it succeed? Lowe won't step down and as I have posted above don't believe major shareholders will be influenced.

 

I think it all depends on how the campaign is run. If its not organised and there are random banners and the odd swing lowe song plus various attendances with people not knowing what games they are meant to be boycotting or people breaking the boycott because its a game they want to see or even if the team start picking results up then it will be negative and wont have the right effect.

 

a simple stratagy of 1st home game every month no matter who the opposition or how we are doing will be simple to follow and the support would quickly rise by including those that might still be sitting on the fence.

 

The club would have positive support on the most part and 1 game per month the message would be loud and clear that Lowe and his gang are not welcome.

 

the 1 problem after that however is there are still no viable alternatives that look like they can do any better and as long as Lowe and his gang are waiting in the wings we will never have a stable club.

[AussieDog]

IF I was still in the UK, I wouldn't contemplate boycotting a game, or giving any of our creditors an opportunity to put us into administration. Maybe I am of the "old school" in that if you have a debt then you should pay it off, if at all possible. However...I would be in favour of a mass demonstration, but only after giving all my support to the team DURING the game. There is a time and place for these events. Maximum publicity, minimal harm to the CLUB. I want there to be a team for me to come back and support (if I get the chance). If we fill St Mary's, that is extra cash in the coffers to get rid of some of our debt. If we do get relegated I at least want it to be the result of the efforts (or lack thereof) from the team, not as the result of a punishment for trying to squirm out of our responsibilities to our debtors.

Of course, there is always the possibility that we may survive this season, like we did last, and that if and when Lowe does go, we can start next season in the Championship, with a manageable debt level, and a Board who will back the club and the Manager.

Just one more thing....if Lowe does go in the very near future, who is going to step into his place and take us to the promised land???

[RobM]

Total and utter rubbish. You have absolutely no basis for believing that this poll is unrepresentative of the wider feelings outside of this forum.

 

The difference between now and then is that before the club had parachute money to support it, whereas now the money from the gate receipts is virtually the only source of revenue apart from player sales.

 

As a result, a mass boycott would have Lowe and the current board gone within days. Even if Lowe was obstinate, either his cronies would tell him the game was up, or else the bank would. Simple.

 

And it isn't the morale of the story; it is the moral. Which even then was incorrect, as I've already said that the mass boycott is a practical alternative.

 

Utter rubbish to you too. What basis do you have for believing that this poll represents the 15k+ fans who attend St.Mary's on a regular basis?

 

And how can you be so sure that a boycott would make Lowe and Co. leave?

 

Think about it... firstly, how are you going to convince 15K people that not going to watch the football on a Saturday is a good idea? How are you going to reach and sell your story to them all? Even if you got somebody like the Echo to support you, you'd never in a million years get that level of support.

 

Let's pretend you had good success in this though and got, say, 5k people to boycott a game. Would that make Lowe leave? No. Not unless this level of people stayed away for the next game and the game after that. Anything less and Lowe would rubbish it as being down to the financial crisis, recession, weather, performances or any other reason you could think of. You know as well as I do that, unfortunately, Lowe will not come out and say the reason these fans stayed away is because of him. And even if snowflakes in hell are reported and he did say such a thing, he wouldn't stand down because of this.

 

A mass boycott is not a practical suggestion. The numbers you are likely to get in support are simply not enough to make Lowe stand down. You had more chance the first time, but now he is back it's going to take much, much more effort to oust him.

 

The sooner people understand that Lowe will only stand down if he has no choice the better. The only people who can oust Lowe are those with enough shares to ensure an EGM vote goes against him. Or, possibly, the bank if they made a public statement saying they will not continue to support the club while Lowe is in charge. And that's less than likely, when have you ever heard of that happening in football before?

 

By all means prove me wrong. In fact, I promise here and now that if you get the number of fans needed (thousands, not low-hundreds) to boycott enough games to make Lowe leave, I will donate £1000 to a charity of your choice. Feel free to quote me on this.

[St Landrew]

Please cut out the insults peeps.

 

I think we do have some evidence that votes from this forum CAN be representative of other sections of Saints fans, if indeed the whole groundswell of support.

 

When we conducted our independent poll on The Saints Web, on whether the fans would like to retain Nigel Pearson or not, we ended with 95% [or thereabouts] of Saints Web voters wanting to retain his services. Unbeknown to us, Radio Hampshire were conducting exactly the same poll [i think they started theirs in response to seeing ours]. Now Radio Hampshire may not be the biggest station ever, but their appeal spreads beyond the Internet Forum set, and possibly to different Saints fans altogether. And yet their poll resulted in almost exactly the same 95%. In fact, I think it was a tad [1%] more conclusive. Now we could argue that either one result was random. But to have two results working in the same direction, and to be within 1% point of each other, is hardly something to be dismissed out of hand.