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

[Charlie Wayman]

If only it was that easy.

[St. Jason]

I recall how effective the red cards were against Branfoot at the Port Vale FA Cup game. White hankies would be useful. Either way, they are items that can go in the pocket easily and the stewards cannot stop them being raised.

 

Whilst the primary focus should be Lowe, let's not forget about Mike Wilde either. 90 minutes solid of singing "Wilde is a Judas" and "Judas sort it out, Judas, Judas sort it out".

 

I do like the idea of white hanky's, could never be stopped, would need to be organised properly though so everyone knew when to do it and at which game!

[saints_is_the_south]

I reckon the Northam staying in the concourse for the entire first half of a game & having a "Lowe & Wilde Out & For Good" banner spread across the seats in the stand wouldn't be a bad shout. Granted the stewards will try & take it down but leave enough fans up there to stay by it & it shouldn't be a problem.

 

Then return to our seats for the 2nd half for 45 minutes of Swing Lowe, Lowe & Wilde out...etc

[St. Jason]

I reckon the Northam staying in the concourse for the entire first half of a game & having a "Lowe & Wilde Out & For Good" banner spread across the seats in the stand wouldn't be a bad shout. Granted the stewards will try & take it down but leave enough fans up there to stay by it & it shouldn't be a problem.

 

Then return to our seats for the 2nd half for 45 minutes of Swing Lowe, Lowe & Wilde out...etc

 

again another good idea, maybe the mods should start a new poll listing the various ideas for protest!

[Johnny Bognor]

I agree 100%, the only problem i see is if Doncaster beat us you can see all the spin now cant you "how do you expect our youngster to perform against a back drop like that" funny though isn't it, the fans have supported the team pretty well yet only 1 home win!!!

 

I disagree Jas.

 

During the last round of protests (swing lowe, flyby's and the like) we won 7 of the remaining 8 games of the season and in fact had our best run in many a year.

 

Conclusion - it had no effect on the team whatsoever.

 

I have stated before, that protests directed at Lowe takes pressure off the team and so you could argue that it would be good for the kids.

[St. Jason]

I disagree Jas.

 

During the last round of protests (swing lowe, flyby's and the like) we won 7 of the remaining 8 games of the season and in fact had our best run in many a year.

 

Conclusion - it had no effect on the team whatsoever.

 

I have stated before, that protests directed at Lowe takes pressure off the team and so you could argue that it would be good for the kids.

 

I agree and understand your point John, just saying that I can see the spin from Lowe & Co should we loose!!!

[yorkie]

Well I'll try this theory at Barnsley - when we win we can than me for the anti-Lowe day I am arranging!

[SaintRobbie]

you know your right big man, but you and I both know Lowe will still spin it!

 

Ps: No point doing it unless lowe can hear it, so needs to be done during the game.

 

Pps. Half time is also no good, how would i get a pint!

 

Get the plane Jason.

[Wes Tender]

'manifestly fair derision that the current regime faces'.... and every other regime faces, because people on this board will clearly be negative about any regime... oh - other than our great saviour Wilde - great call!

 

The sad fact is that our current problems are far greater than any board can deal with: a fundamental mismatch between revenues in the Championship & the costs of St Mary's & running an even half-way respectable team. Only a significant cash infusion will save us from that problem... we could have Steve Jobs or Peter Kenyon or anyone else in charge of the business side, but until we get the cash - nothing is likely to be different.

 

All this moaning about firing Pearson is completely futile... the fact is we couldn't afford him or his well-paid journeymen squad.

 

We dont have the money. We dont have the money. Stop moaning about ifs and buts.

 

Welcomes Timbatop to the forum and is pleased to see that his contribution has been fairly concisely demolished by Um Pahars and CB Fry.

 

Also wonders why I hadn't heard of cash infusions before. Usually people talk about cash injections. Perhaps it is Lowespeak picked up in the City.

 

Is there anybody being positive about Wilde on this forum? I think that anybody who was positive about him changed their minds, whereas those who hailed Lowe as a being worth another shot have also largely changed their minds too. A combination of both of the failed chairmen back in charge is the worst possible scenario and the root cause of our current parlous state.

[saintwarwick]

It is not a "fact" we couldn't afford Pearson. Of course we could.

 

We could afford Pearson. We could afford Pearson. Stop making up shi te.

 

And we are no more financially poor than Blackpool, or Barnsley or Plymouth, all of which sit above in the table without the need for "Steve Jobs or Peter Keynon" at the helm.

 

Running a club on a shoestring is not that difficult, but its a hell of a lot harder when the idiot in charge of it replaces a decent promising manager we could afford to keep with a no mark no hoper from the Dutch semi pro leagues.

 

 

We have a large mortgage that these clubs don't, perhaps that is our financial difficulty, just a thought. Once that is paid running on a shoestring will not be difficult.

[Raven on the wing]

Blackpools average gate is only 8k and Plymouths 11k compared to our 17k. At £20 per head x 23 games. This equates to £4.14m and £2.76m respectively and must go a long way to offsetting the "large mortgage" arguement compared to those those two clubs. Barnsley average 13k and would have been bolstered by last years (?) cup exploits.

[SW11_Saint]

my guess is that he thought it would be better system AND cheaper - is that such a ridiculous guess?

Would be nice to have a chairman who didn't make critical strategic decisions by "guessing"...!

[benjii]

Blackpools average gate is only 8k and Plymouths 11k compared to our 17k. At £20 per head x 23 games. This equates to £4.14m and £2.76m respectively and must go a long way to offsetting the "large mortgage" arguement compared to those those two clubs. Barnsley average 13k and would have been bolstered by last years (?) cup exploits.

 

That additional revenue more than offsets the annual loan repayments.

[SW11_Saint]

'manifestly fair derision that the current regime faces'.... and every other regime faces, because people on this board will clearly be negative about any regime... oh - other than our great saviour Wilde - great call!

 

The sad fact is that our current problems are far greater than any board can deal with: a fundamental mismatch between revenues in the Championship & the costs of St Mary's & running an even half-way respectable team. Only a significant cash infusion will save us from that problem... we could have Steve Jobs or Peter Kenyon or anyone else in charge of the business side, but until we get the cash - nothing is likely to be different.

 

All this moaning about firing Pearson is completely futile... the fact is we couldn't afford him or his well-paid journeymen squad.

 

We dont have the money. We dont have the money. Stop moaning about ifs and buts.

With due respect (and welcome to the board by the way), absolute codswallop...

 

Not every regime faced such derision - I am one of Crouch's bigger critics, and DO NOT think he is the right long term Chairman for SFC (to be fair, I don't even think Leon thinks he is) but the vast majority of fans were behind that regime, and what they were at least trying to achieve. The club definitely pulled together last year - culminating in the last day nailbiting win of Sheff Utd. I remember feeling positive then, for the first time in years... until of course you know who came along and decided to inflict another of his bizarre experiments on the club. No one will ever convince me that the Dutch duo were so signficantly cheaper than Pearson to make a material difference (and even if they were, what a ridiculous false economy that has turned out to be!).

 

With regard to Wilde, I don't think anyone who had faith in him retains it now - he has proved himself to be spineless and ineffective (other than throwing his shares behind whoever pats him on the head and throws him a biscuit).

 

I do agree that our problems are greater than any of the clowns we have now, or have had in the recent past, can deal with, and that a cash injection (and change of leadership) is required. If only the board had realised the scale of our potential problems while we were still in the Premiership and had a chance to save ourselves (ref. Steve "1 win in 14" Wigley) - oops there I go again - another "if"... what an awful backward-looking lot we fans are!

[scotty]

oops there I go again - another "if"... what an awful backward-looking lot we fans are!

 

 

You might as well look backward, theres not a hell of a lot of joy approaching us.

[SaintRobbie]

75% of fans would be prepared to boycott in some capacity or boo Lowe during a game.

 

Quite overwhelming that Sundance. Minority of fans want Lowe out? You're avin a giraffe me ol ****er.

[alexdawkins]

I am not anti Doncaster and it was a nice gesture for them to give us a picture of a train, however, I'm sure like a lot of other supporters I feel aggrieved ( as a small shareholder also) that RL could only find one place to put it, by replacing the LM/FA cup picture.

 

For those good at organising, would you think it a good idea (copyright allowing?) for a protest, to have all willing supporters hold up a picture of the LM/FA cup picture at the Donny match. Most people probably have or have access to a PC and printer.

 

Not exactly a strong anti Lowe protest but just a thought.

 

this typified the sheer stupidity and arrogance of the vile creature that is rupert lowe. the excuse he gave at the AGM was even more pathetic than the act itself - grow a pair, rupert. i think this idea is definitely a good one- humorous and sends a clear message. hopefully lots will boycott the match, and those that do go will sing 'swing lowe' for the full 90 whilst holding up the lawrie photos. in fact, that sounds so good, it is almost worth going for. GET LOWE OUT.

[saintwarwick]

this typified the sheer stupidity and arrogance of the vile creature that is rupert lowe. the excuse he gave at the AGM was even more pathetic than the act itself - grow a pair, rupert. i think this idea is definitely a good one- humorous and sends a clear message. hopefully lots will boycott the match, and those that do go will sing 'swing lowe' for the full 90 whilst holding up the lawrie photos. in fact, that sounds so good, it is almost worth going for. GET LOWE OUT.

 

That'll send a good message to the players on the pitch :sad:

[Wes Tender]

That'll send a good message to the players on the pitch :sad:

 

It's about time we dispelled this myth once and for all that chanting against the Chairman or the board will in some way disparage the players. It might well be that they have opinions as individuals that are in tune with the majority of the fans and that they may well feel encouraged that momentum to rid the club of these charlatans on the board is gathering pace. But as an alternative to the booing of Lowe and Co, or chanting against them, the mass boycott of a match would be well publicised in the media and the players would know why the number watching was falling, in the same way that they would realise why there was such a negative atmosphere in the stadium.

 

They have had a positive atmosphere at every home match this season and look at the sole win they have achieved as a result. It could indeed be argued that perhaps a more hostile atmospere could be beneficial on that basis, strangely.

 

Anyway, as professional players, those worth their salt would be focussed on playing and should not be particularly aware of what is being chanted. Or there is also the possibility that some rivals' players are actually motivated by adverse chanting anyway. So how is that explained away?

 

Taking these points into consideration, it is hard to prove the argument either way.

 

What would be clear though that is a combination of missing bums on seats in great numbers and adverse demonstrations against Lowe and the board from those who do attend matches would produce the required results.

[saintwarwick]

It's about time we dispelled this myth once and for all that chanting against the Chairman or the board will in some way disparage the players. It might well be that they have opinions as individuals that are in tune with the majority of the fans and that they may well feel encouraged that momentum to rid the club of these charlatans on the board is gathering pace. But as an alternative to the booing of Lowe and Co, or chanting against them, the mass boycott of a match would be well publicised in the media and the players would know why the number watching was falling, in the same way that they would realise why there was such a negative atmosphere in the stadium.

 

They have had a positive atmosphere at every home match this season and look at the sole win they have achieved as a result. It could indeed be argued that perhaps a more hostile atmospere could be beneficial on that basis, strangely.

 

Anyway, as professional players, those worth their salt would be focussed on playing and should not be particularly aware of what is being chanted. Or there is also the possibility that some rivals' players are actually motivated by adverse chanting anyway. So how is that explained away?

 

Taking these points into consideration, it is hard to prove the argument either way.

 

What would be clear though that is a combination of missing bums on seats in great numbers and adverse demonstrations against Lowe and the board from those who do attend matches would produce the required results.

 

Each to their own I suppose, the fans have been great at home matches this season even though there has been a lack of these fans at many a game. It seems the players, as young as they are, freeze in front of their own fans hence our abysmyl record at home. The last thing we need is anti-Lowe songs during the game to add to this pressure.

[GreenTreeFrog]

It's about time we dispelled this myth once and for all

 

(Body of text cut)

 

Taking these points into consideration, it is hard to prove the argument either way.

 

 

That’s a very large turnaround there, Wes.

 

In a few paragraphs you have gone from ‘dispelling the myth once and for all’ to ‘its hard to prove either way’.

 

 

 

Your points are dubious anyway. For instance you claim the players have enjoyed ‘positive support’ all season but it could equally be argued that, now matter how enthusiastic the attending fans are, the sight of a half empty stadium is probably says more to the players. Maybe that is why we significantly better away from home, with more away points than Palace and Preston, equal points to Cardiff, one point behind Burnley and only two behind Sheffield United and Reading. As you know, all these teams are in the top 8 positions in the Championship. In fact only Wolves and Birmingham have significantly more away points than us (26, 23 respectively).

 

So our home record is shockingly bad and our away record is decent to good. Maybe that shows the players are not enjoying playing at St Mary's but it could be other factors (ie expectation).

 

I imagine the players already realise there is an anti-Lowe feeling among many fans - in fact I would be amazed if they did not. I am sure they also know why the attendance is falling and realise if they could actually start winning home games thousands of fans will come back through the turnstiles.

 

That is not a criticism of those fans not going because we are not winning, its just how things are in football. The home attendances of both Derby and Preston rose by an average of 3000 shortly after Billy Davies took over - purely as they started winning games again. If you believe the anti Billy Davies types (I know you don't, Wes) his teams only ever played hoofball. Even if that were true (it isnt, Preston were an exciting team to watch under him) the fans still came back as they enjoyed seeing their team regularly winning the home fixtures.

[VectisSaint]

Your points are dubious anyway. For instance you claim the players have enjoyed ‘positive support’ all season but it could equally be argued that, now matter how enthusiastic the attending fans are, the sight of a half empty stadium is probably says more to the players. Maybe that is why we significantly better away from home, with more away points than Palace and Preston, equal points to Cardiff, one point behind Burnley and only two behind Sheffield United and Reading. As you know, all these teams are in the top 8 positions in the Championship. In fact only Wolves and Birmingham have significantly more away points than us (26, 23 respectively).

 

So our home record is shockingly bad and our away record is decent to good. Maybe that shows the players are not enjoying playing at St Mary's but it could be other factors (ie expectation).

 

I imagine the players already realise there is an anti-Lowe feeling among many fans - in fact I would be amazed if they did not. I am sure they also know why the attendance is falling and realise if they could actually start winning home games thousands of fans will come back through the turnstiles.

 

That is not a criticism of those fans not going because we are not winning, its just how things are in football. The home attendances of both Derby and Preston rose by an average of 3000 shortly after Billy Davies took over - purely as they started winning games again. If you believe the anti Billy Davies types (I know you don't, Wes) his teams only ever played hoofball. Even if that were true (it isnt, Preston were an exciting team to watch under him) the fans still came back as they enjoyed seeing their team regularly winning the home fixtures.

So you don't think the difference between our home form and our away form has anything to do with tactics then? Nothing to do with playing one up front against teams that come content to get a draw by playing 5 across the middle to stifle what creativity we may have. Why would it make any difference how full the stadium is, have you seen some of the attendances when we played away? Half empty stadiums then as well. Did we do well against Forset or Manure? This myth that it is lack of bums on seats that affects our players is another one that has to be dispelled. Most youth/reserve team players who are now in the 1st team would be more used to playing in front of one man and his dog, so maybe the problem is that there are too many people attending SMS, so a boycott might actually help.

 

By the way, haven't looked at this thread for a while, I support the idea of a boycott, but a boycott on its own is pointless, it only works if those actively boycotting still go to the stadium and protest OUTSIDE. If not there is no boycott.

[Frank's cousin]

Absolute rubbish.

 

Pearson was easily affordable and when you consider that the manager is the single most important person at any Club it is a total false economy to go for the cheap option.

 

WE COULD HAVE AFFORDED PEARSON!

 

As for his liking for a journeyman squad, here are some words from Pearson, which make it clear that he was aware of the financial constraints he would have to work under, but how he still felt he could improve the team:

 

 

"It will be a combination. The reality is there will be comings and goings, there is no doubt about that.

 

Economics will play a part and there will be some natural wastage as players come to the end of their contracts. Then it will be a case of finding players who fit the bill.

 

We need a side capable of getting success but which fits in with the financial situation. But we are not going to be splashing fortunes on players.

 

Even in the short time I have been here, I have been looking to see if we can get players on loan. Short-term is the immediate priority but I am looking long-term too."

 

He was also up for using the Academy and the youth players in the future.

 

 

"A lot of my background is working with youngsters. I worked with the England youth teams for three years and I see the Academy as a massive part of the club.

 

I have worked at clubs where the academy and first-team are separate entities and not integrated at all and those clubs are the poorer for it.

 

If you put the right effort into recruiting and developing the right players then it can save the club a lot of money on transfer fees."

 

 

The decision to sack Pearson and replace him with Poortvliet was a massive, massive, massive mistake and one that is hitting us on the pitch with lost points and hitting us off the pitch with lost fans in the stands and lost pounds in the bank.

 

UP

 

Do you have any REAL idea why the decision was made, or do you think it was purely because it was a Crouch appointmnet and Lowe had his own idea and was determined to see it through and Wilde was just a patsy?

 

I ask, because, I would have liked to see what Pearson could do, but also felt excited by trying the Dutch guys, especially the way we were playing at teh start of the season, where I think most felt, that if we carried on playing like that, the results would surely come... which sadly they have not. Its easy to say this decison was a mistake in hindsight, and their is no guarrantee that we would be in any better position under Pearson than we are now, given that the squad would have looked pretty much the same.

 

The argument that Pearson 'deserved' a chance is fair, only if we also say that Gray and Wigley 'deserved' their chances surely?

[John Smith]

UP

 

Do you have any REAL idea why the decision was made, or do you think it was purely because it was a Crouch appointmnet and Lowe had his own idea and was determined to see it through and Wilde was just a patsy?

 

I ask, because, I would have liked to see what Pearson could do, but also felt excited by trying the Dutch guys, especially the way we were playing at teh start of the season, where I think most felt, that if we carried on playing like that, the results would surely come... which sadly they have not. Its easy to say this decison was a mistake in hindsight, and their is no guarrantee that we would be in any better position under Pearson than we are now, given that the squad would have looked pretty much the same.

 

The argument that Pearson 'deserved' a chance is fair, only if we also say that Gray and Wigley 'deserved' their chances surely?

 

But then FC, you miss the point, the reason you were excited to begin with, was due to the OS and Lowe, telling us that we were in for a football revolution, where 'total football' would take center stage.

 

Which fans wouldn't be excited at that? And at the start of the season, you felt that playing like this, the results would surely come. But they didn;t, and they still don't.

 

Now, almost two thirds of the season gone, we're reverting to a more even balance, maybe we'll try a different system, maybe Lowe will sack JP, who knows? Truth of the matter is though, IT DIDN'T WORK! However you look at it, however you parade it, dress it up or cry, IT DIDN'T WORK!

 

So, was it a gamble? Who made that gamble? Or do you think that a Chairman is justified to gamble like this? Particularly when we are already in the mess we are? Surely, the safe bet would've been to stick with NP? Maybe going with an English manager that knows the division, knows how to train youngsters and work with experience, knows how to play football at this level, would've been more of a positive move?

 

And, if you agree, that taking chances when we can't afford to, then maybe you could take the courage to agree that Lowe cannot carry on, he has trifled and played his games for too long, and they will continue.

 

But, if you disagree, then you must be the type of person, that if they lose their job in this terrible time, will take their last pay cheque and bet it all on Red. Because it don;t make sense!

 

Lowe is an imbicile and he gambles with this clubs money, our money. He is a liability and must go. Nothing about class, nothing about hockey, just looking at his time since our relegation season, he's lost the plot and is dragging us down with him.

 

But, by all means, jibber on and justify his claims and exaggerations with drivvle. Ignore the fact that HE made a massive mistake of monumental proportions and do like the rest of his board do, ignore it. Close your eyes and your ears and say nah nah nah, I'm not listening. And then, when you open them again, expect to see us in the Prem, top of the CCC or pushing for Europe, because it ain;t gonna happen.

[Frank's cousin]

But, by all means, jibber on and justify his claims and exaggerations with drivvle. Ignore the fact that HE made a massive mistake of monumental proportions and do like the rest of his board do, ignore it. Close your eyes and your ears and say nah nah nah, I'm not listening. And then, when you open them again, expect to see us in the Prem, top of the CCC or pushing for Europe, because it ain;t gonna happen.

 

I was listening until you got to this bit....... there is absolutely NOTHING in my previous post that warrants this response..I asked a question that was all.

 

and NO the reason for being excited at the start of the season HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OS - it had to do with watching a few games pre season and the first few league games and seeing our kids pass the ball so please dont make stuff up to suit your POV.

 

No one as far as I can see is advocating a head in sand approach - the fact that we are srruggling for points tells its own story and that something needs to change to ensure we survive and pretty darn quick. At all levels ideally, but we dont live in dreamworld where just because we dislike him lowe will disappear up his own a*se - he is here and will be here until someone buys his shares - accept it FFS - If he does not change the manager and we get relegated, yes he will need to be accountable, if he does not change the manager and we survive and say improve next season will YOU be prepared to change your mind?

 

Thats all I'm asking for or advocating exactly what you seem to be requesting - AN OPEN MIND - because folk can protest all they like, until someone purchases Lowes and his cronies shares he will be influential at the club. that is not being supportive, its a statement of fact.

 

Some fans seem to give LOwe TOPO much credit - considering him the architecht of some grand scheme to feck us up. The truth is hes just an average businessman, who has a share in the club and is currently on the board - has his own ideas on how to run a club which is at odds with most fans and the football establishment - but has arguably some good ideas. Has failed in the execution of his plan for a variety of reasons and was kickout out. the club continued to spiral downhill and hes come back in to rescue his sharevalue - simple really.

 

The best way for his to rescue his sharevalue is stablizing the clubs losses, and then footbaling success - which we have to admit is pretty much what fans want right now. He just has his own way of doing it which we dont agree with...end of story.

 

HOw that equate sto him being the devil' a*sehole or that hideous overused and frankly sick 'cancer at the club metaphor' is beyond me. Afterall we are talking about a game.

Edited 15 January, 2009 by Frank's cousin

[John Smith]

I was listening until you got to this bit....... there is absolutely NOTHING in my previous post that warrants this response..I asked a question that was all.

 

Sorry Frank, but you keep doing this of late. I have asked you a couple of questions, where you miss the point totally, focus on the but where you can roll out the middle ground view and ignore the consistency of failure of Lowe. You;ve done it again with your Wigley and Grey statement. No, it didn't mean that at all and everyone can see this.

 

hence the reason I am calling it drivvel, because it is. You are dodging meaningful points by ignoring them altogether and then placing a nonsense portion at the end of your posts. So, I thought I'd do the same, in the hope that it would snap you out of your middle fence, miss the point situation. But, I failed, you missed the point again, I waste another point explaining that you missed the point and then you;ll post again and miss the point. Can;t be bothered anymore. Sorry Frank, I used to respect your posts, even though we disagreed, but your posts have become so fence sitting and ignorant of the turmoil, I can't be bothered to waste my time, putting together an argument, that you then just ignore and do something like "so does that mean we should have given Wigley and Grey more of a chance?" NO IT DOESN'T. IT MEANS LOWE, LEARN FROM YOUR BLOOMIN MISTAKES.

[Frank's cousin]

Sorry Frank, but you keep doing this of late. I have asked you a couple of questions, where you miss the point totally, focus on the but where you can roll out the middle ground view and ignore the consistency of failure of Lowe. You;ve done it again with your Wigley and Grey statement. No, it didn't mean that at all and everyone can see this.

 

hence the reason I am calling it drivvel, because it is. You are dodging meaningful points by ignoring them altogether and then placing a nonsense portion at the end of your posts. So, I thought I'd do the same, in the hope that it would snap you out of your middle fence, miss the point situation. But, I failed, you missed the point again, I waste another point explaining that you missed the point and then you;ll post again and miss the point. Can;t be bothered anymore. Sorry Frank, I used to respect your posts, even though we disagreed, but your posts have become so fence sitting and ignorant of the turmoil, I can't be bothered to waste my time, putting together an argument, that you then just ignore and do something like "so does that mean we should have given Wigley and Grey more of a chance?" NO IT DOESN'T. IT MEANS LOWE, LEARN FROM YOUR BLOOMIN MISTAKES.

 

Jeez so trying to understand a middleground - appreciate that whilst mistakes are made, there was some merit in it is suddenly drivvel? Some call it diplomacy

 

You basically want me to give a black or white answer - OK,

 

Q. Should Lowe go?

A. YES

 

Q. Has Lowe made mistakes...big mistakes?

A. YES

 

Q. Do you understand the idea behind Lowe's approach even if it has been unsuccessful in its execution?

A. YES

 

Q. Do you believe that protests will get us rid of Lowe?

A. NO

 

Q. How do we get rid of Lowe

A. Buy his shares and those of his cronies at a fair price?(realism)

 

Q. Do you Love Lowe?

A. NO, I dont know him and from what we hear he spouts an awful lot of arrogant and insulting rubbish - someone really needs to teach him communication and PR skills

 

Q. It seems to me that you do Love Lowe and dont want him to go?

A. NO, I do not love him an would like him to go ifonly so we have unity, BUT that does not mean I cant appreciaed what he tried even if its failing. Also being a realist, until someone buys his shares he will be involved at the club

 

Q. Surely Pearson was the best option, afterall he kept us up and showed passion and understanding of the CCC?

A. I would have had no problem had Pearson stayed, I liked his passion and his calm intelligent response and communication Lowe could have learned alot from him... - but it would also have been a gamble, afterall his actual points tally in his games in charge is not that much better than Stuart Grays - probably a smaller gamble than going with teh Dutch dou TBF. BUt hindsight is a wonderful thing.

 

Q. What you have no concerns about JP? Look at the table FFS!!!

A. When appointed, I was intrigued, I have alswyas liked the continental style/approach believing the English game is still antiquated in many respects with too much old school holding abck progress, especially when you consider things like the conveyour belt of talent they had at Ajax. Sure he was an unknown and a big risk, but it might work, what diod we have to lose? we knew it was going to be kids and early indications were quite positive.... its not worked so we need some change - Kids and new coaches do need a couple of seasons though but I acknowledge we dont ahev that luxury right now if we are to survive - sad in a way though - continuity and continued development would I believe see this young squad develop - yes it needs a striker and a decnt defender but we are not as far off as the points on the board suggest - but yes it is ultimately about points.

 

Q. So why cant you just accept Lowe must go and JP with him then?

A.There is a difference between aceppting that they should go... and teh reality of the fact LOwe wont until he is bought out and JP will be here until Lowe panics.

 

Q. Thats just Lowe luvvie speak sitting on the fence surely?

A|. NO IT FECKIN IS NOT ;-)

[GreenTreeFrog]

So you don't think the difference between our home form and our away form has anything to do with tactics then? Nothing to do with playing one up front against teams that come content to get a draw by playing 5 across the middle to stifle what creativity we may have. Why would it make any difference how full the stadium is, have you seen some of the attendances when we played away? Half empty stadiums then as well. Did we do well against Forset or Manure? This myth that it is lack of bums on seats that affects our players is another one that has to be dispelled. Most youth/reserve team players who are now in the 1st team would be more used to playing in front of one man and his dog, so maybe the problem is that there are too many people attending SMS, so a boycott might actually help.

 

By the way, haven't looked at this thread for a while, I support the idea of a boycott, but a boycott on its own is pointless, it only works if those actively boycotting still go to the stadium and protest OUTSIDE. If not there is no boycott.

 

 

Of course there could be any number of reasons why our home form is so poor, in fact if you look at my post I actually said it could be due to ‘other factors.’

 

JP even said the players are more relaxed playing away from home and suggested that was partly responsible for the better results on the road. I never said low attendance is absolutely the only possible explanation, or that tactics were irrelevant. You have taken my comments out of context by suggesting that.

 

You said you want to ‘dispel the myth that bums on seat affects the players’ which suggests you believe fans make no difference whatsoever. I find it hard to understand that anyone could seriously believe a large passionate home crowd is not beneficial in any way. In any case you failed to dispel the ‘myth’ at all, you merely brought up a couple of games where the attendance was good but the perfromance/result was not. The only thing that shows is that higher home attendances cannot guarantee a win. Hardly a shock really, especially as one of those games was against a top premiership side.

 

Celtic’s away form in Europe is awful (especially in champions league) but their home form is excellent, even against the top sides. Few teams enjoy playing away to Celtic in these games as they know 60,000 fans are passionately chanting for Celtic and screaming abuse against the opposition players. It’s the 12th man effect, and I am sure you know that. Both Martin O’Neill and Gordon Strachan have been unable change Celtic’s fortunes away from home. Tactics aside, I don’t think it’s really that radical to suggest the passionate and hostile atmosphere at Celtic Park has an enormous effect on the outcome of the game. Would they have such a good home record if the average home crowd at these games was 20,000 and there were vast empty spaces in the stadium? I don’t think they would but it’s hard to prove of course.

 

 

As far as away crowds go why would the saints players confidence be affected by a half empty away grounds? A poor home attendance is a statement on the home team, not the away team. Anyway I have basically covered that in the above paragraph.

[John Smith]

Jeez so trying to understand a middleground - appreciate that whilst mistakes are made, there was some merit in it is suddenly drivvel? Some call it diplomacy

 

You basically want me to give a black or white answer - OK,

 

Q. Should Lowe go?

A. YES

 

Q. Has Lowe made mistakes...big mistakes?

A. YES

 

Q. Do you understand the idea behind Lowe's approach even if it has been unsuccessful in its execution?

A. YES

 

Q. Do you believe that protests will get us rid of Lowe?

A. NO

 

Q. How do we get rid of Lowe

A. Buy his shares and those of his cronies at a fair price?(realism)

 

Q. Do you Love Lowe?

A. NO, I dont know him and from what we hear he spouts an awful lot of arrogant and insulting rubbish - someone really needs to teach him communication and PR skills

 

Q. It seems to me that you do Love Lowe and dont want him to go?

A. NO, I do not love him an would like him to go ifonly so we have unity, BUT that does not mean I cant appreciaed what he tried even if its failing. Also being a realist, until someone buys his shares he will be involved at the club

 

Q. Surely Pearson was the best option, afterall he kept us up and showed passion and understanding of the CCC?

A. I would have had no problem had Pearson stayed, I liked his passion and his calm intelligent response and communication Lowe could have learned alot from him... - but it would also have been a gamble, afterall his actual points tally in his games in charge is not that much better than Stuart Grays - probably a smaller gamble than going with teh Dutch dou TBF. BUt hindsight is a wonderful thing.

 

Q. What you have no concerns about JP? Look at the table FFS!!!

A. When appointed, I was intrigued, I have alswyas liked the continental style/approach believing the English game is still antiquated in many respects with too much old school holding abck progress, especially when you consider things like the conveyour belt of talent they had at Ajax. Sure he was an unknown and a big risk, but it might work, what diod we have to lose? we knew it was going to be kids and early indications were quite positive.... its not worked so we need some change - Kids and new coaches do need a couple of seasons though but I acknowledge we dont ahev that luxury right now if we are to survive - sad in a way though - continuity and continued development would I believe see this young squad develop - yes it needs a striker and a decnt defender but we are not as far off as the points on the board suggest - but yes it is ultimately about points.

 

Q. So why cant you just accept Lowe must go and JP with him then?

A.There is a difference between aceppting that they should go... and teh reality of the fact LOwe wont until he is bought out and JP will be here until Lowe panics.

 

Q. Thats just Lowe luvvie speak sitting on the fence surely?

A|. NO IT FECKIN IS NOT ;-)

 

Like I said Frank, you increasingly miss the point. I have never called, nor referred to you as a Lowe Luvvie, and I do understand your position. The 'only' part of this post is the first two points. Should Lowe go? You say yes. Has lowe made mistakes? Again, you say yes.

 

That is the point, and I have pointed this out before, and has been the thrust of my annoyance with you. Forget all the rest of that Lowe luvvie stuff, it's not me and it's not the way I operate. What I, and others on here have been saying to you, is then 'why doesn;t he go?' That's the frustrating part. And let me clarify my position on the 'what if' he were to go position, and those doubters out there that nobody can replace him. The board and the shareholders need to get their heads together and 'find someone'. They need to build a list of candidates and not repeat their failures of the past. Crikey, there's enough mistakes there for everyone to learn from. From that list, take a vote and get the best man for the job. fact is, Lowe isn't.

 

Lowe came back to 'rescue' his shares and the financial position of this club. On reflection, and yes, hindsight is a wonderful thing, he c*cked it up. He made no major decisions beyond what someone like Crouch or any other reasonable Chairman, would've or could've made, considering the debt situation. BUT, and it's a big BUT, he hasn;t delivered on his commitment. He has failed. And unless he makles a massive U-Turn or quits, we are doomed, end of.

 

That leads me onto my last point, and to me, this is the most damning and also the bit that frustates me a lot, and probably partially the reason why I get frustrated with intelligent people such asa yourself. Because, for me, I don;t believe Lowe will ever put his hands in the air and admit he messed up. I also don;t believe that their is a limit to Lowes c*ck ups whereby he would feel compelled to resign. Lowe will continue to do things 'his' way 'despite' of results, because he believes that he is right. Any show of weakness, ie, admitting he c*cked up, to Lowe, this is a sign of 'weakness'. And that, my friend, is dangerous FOR SAINTS.

 

And so, like I said, it takes me three posts to hopefully get my point across to you, here I am at my third post. I hope you have understood where I am coming from, and I hope that you are big enough to realise that your little rant - the long list of meaningless Q & A's - is what I've been getting at. I'm sorry it took my little dig to 'hopefully' rattle your cage, because I believe, that all the time intelligent people, such as yourself, allow Lowe his failures and do not want more for this cloub, away from Lowe, I believe there will be no pressure on the board whatsoever, to do anything about it. And as I said above, I don;t believe Lowe will EVER resign, EVER EVER, regardless of results, regardless of league position, regardless of performances on the pitch, regardless of youth/experience balance. Nothing, nadda, will make Lowe resign, the only people that will make Lowe resign, will be the Board and the shareholders, and yes, they do read this sight, and no, I don;t believe they were privvy to Lowes AGM anonymous letter.

 

As a by the way, if Lowe does change tact, will he write back to that fan and apologise for abandoning 'total football' and the Dutch experiment? LOL

 

John (signing out)

 

P.S. These two posts together should fill a whole page! Ah, the good old days when we used to post one liners!

[Frank's cousin]

JB

 

I DO understyand where you are coming from, I do understand and respect your perspective and we are not that far apart really... ;-)

 

I think your point about the 'most damming part' re Lowe never putting his hands up and admiting his failure is quite true... and I agree, but that was not what I was arguing against.

 

I guess my frustration is twofold:

 

1. Because of my opinion on the game and the merits of a continental approach, to see it fail and be kicked out is bloodly annoying and sad - because I also believe these things do take time 2-3 seasons of continuity for it to be fully working - but sadly we dont have that luxury, because the balance is flawed as we have seen. I agree with that. I also believe Lowe could have managed this far better, and that is another thing because I feel let down. I have supported the ideals and yet Lowe makes it very difficult and in some cases impossible to defend.... certainly not without a good sound kicking on here anyway! ;-). In addition, rightly or wrongly fans in general dont have the patience for this and this means loss of interest, reduced gates and reduced revenue, and whether or not that is wrong, is kinda irrelevent as well as its teh way it is....but also contributes to my frustration.

 

2. I dont agree though that its as easy as simply getting shareholders and the board to simply help get rid. Thats exactly what happened when Wilde came along and all it did was push Lowe and his cronies to the fringes, create further divisive bitterness between the major sharholder groups and store this resentmnet uop for the future - because they ALL act like a bunch of kids.... and if this is done again now, then will not simply be repeating the same mistake?

[Wes Tender]

That’s a very large turnaround there, Wes.

 

In a few paragraphs you have gone from ‘dispelling the myth once and for all’ to ‘its hard to prove either way’.

 

 

 

Your points are dubious anyway. For instance you claim the players have enjoyed ‘positive support’ all season but it could equally be argued that, now matter how enthusiastic the attending fans are, the sight of a half empty stadium is probably says more to the players. Maybe that is why we significantly better away from home, with more away points than Palace and Preston, equal points to Cardiff, one point behind Burnley and only two behind Sheffield United and Reading. As you know, all these teams are in the top 8 positions in the Championship. In fact only Wolves and Birmingham have significantly more away points than us (26, 23 respectively).

 

So our home record is shockingly bad and our away record is decent to good. Maybe that shows the players are not enjoying playing at St Mary's but it could be other factors (ie expectation).

 

I imagine the players already realise there is an anti-Lowe feeling among many fans - in fact I would be amazed if they did not. I am sure they also know why the attendance is falling and realise if they could actually start winning home games thousands of fans will come back through the turnstiles.

 

That is not a criticism of those fans not going because we are not winning, its just how things are in football. The home attendances of both Derby and Preston rose by an average of 3000 shortly after Billy Davies took over - purely as they started winning games again. If you believe the anti Billy Davies types (I know you don't, Wes) his teams only ever played hoofball. Even if that were true (it isnt, Preston were an exciting team to watch under him) the fans still came back as they enjoyed seeing their team regularly winning the home fixtures.

 

Where's the turnaround? I hope to have dispelled the myth that bums on seats made a difference to the players by raising several counter arguments to prove that it was inconclusive as a valid argument. That is not a turnaround, although by cutting all the text outlining my arguments and making the assertion that it was, gives credence to that view to any who are not prepared to read back over those points.

 

The valid points raised by you and Vectis Saint further muddy the waters so that it becomes even more inconclusive whether the players react positively or negatively to a full or an empty stadium. As to the expectations of the players, the players themselves had experienced mostly success in the academy and reserves and failure had been something alien to them. Personally, I don't think that Poortvliet is a successful motivator and also I think that there is a lot in what is said about the formation that he employs and how one dimensional it is tactically.

 

You know that I agree with your assessment of Billy Davies and I believe that Nigel Pearson is from the same mould and that either of them being in charge would have produced better results than Poortvliet, mainly because both understand how football is played at this level, how to blend a team from youth and experience and also having knowledge of the personnel available to do a useful job in tough circumstances.

 

We will rue the day that we let Pearson go, or did not appoint Billy Davies. Pearson has already demonstrated what he can do and I fully expect to witness Davies pull up Forest by their bootstrings at our expense.

 

In the meantime, our current home form. for whatever reason, will guarantee our relegation unless drastic action is taken to remedy it. Poortvliet has not yet demonstrated the ability to address it in well over half a season.

[Turtle]

 

Q. How do we get rid of Lowe

A. Buy his shares and those of his cronies at a fair price?(realism)

 

Q. It seems to me that you do Love Lowe and dont want him to go?

A. NO, I do not love him an would like him to go ifonly so we have unity, BUT that does not mean I cant appreciaed what he tried even if its failing. Also being a realist, until someone buys his shares he will be involved at the club

 

 

 

 

There are many examples of companies being run by experts in the boardroom and not just the largest shareholders.

 

Why do people assume that the people holding sway over the majority of the shares should be Chairman etc.....

 

One thing Wilde got right when he first ousted Lowe was to realise he was not the right person to Chair SLH. His selection turned out to be flawed, but he accepted that the best person to run the club on a day to day basis was not himself as the largest shareholder.

 

We could have completely different people in the Boardroom, people who know the business of football, and not a single shareholder amongst them.

 

Lowe, Crouch, Wilde and all the other "large" shareholders should realise this and get in a team who know how to keep the business on an even keel whilst still being able to "speculate to accumulae". Its this balance that has been missing with the recent administrations.... one is too "prudent" and the other was too "bullish".....

[SilverSaint76]

Hello all I'm new to this forum, have been a Saints fan for 24 years and have been to countless amounts of games home and away. I have even taken my children and turned them into avid Saints fans as well.

I am beyond depressed and fed up with the state of OUR club and I think it's about time we stood up for what we believe in and pull OUR club off of it's backside and get it back to where it belongs, which is a respected, family orientated and loved club by all supporters with no divides. We need to unite as one and begin protests immediately (Non Violent) but with a bigger plan in mind. We need to stand up and be counted put our hands in our pockets once again and purchase the shares needed to oust the likes of Lowe and his pitiful sidekicks. I appreciate money is tight for everyone at the moment but I would be more than willing to find 50 - 100 quid from my pitiful wages if I thought it could be done. If we can purchase enough shares and vote on how we want the club to be run even if that means administration and relegation for the bigger cause then perhaps we can achieve what we all obviously want and perhaps attract some outside interest in the process.

[brightspark]

There NEEDS to be a boycott but it won't happen, because somehow the fans will just turn up despite the attraction of seeing 1 home win all season.

 

1 home win all season.

 

Yes fans who always go.

 

You've seen 1 home win all season.

 

And you still go.

 

Do you go and believe in wins?

 

When the team wins 1 home game all season in the Championship

 

A league we were meant to 'walk' a couple of years ago

 

You still go

 

How do you cope

 

Do you have no brains? Do you not suffer from dissappointment?

 

ARE WE ALL CYBERMEN!!!

 

I can only hope a boycott happens to scare Lowe and hopefully contribute to getting him out and a brighter future. Above poster is dead on though, it needs big names publically advertising or else the cybermen that are Saints fans who still go despite 1 home win all season in the ridiculos hope of a victory.

[Wes Tender]

There NEEDS to be a boycott but it won't happen, because somehow the fans will just turn up despite the attraction of seeing 1 home win all season.

 

1 home win all season.

 

Yes fans who always go.

 

You've seen 1 home win all season.

 

And you still go.

 

Do you go and believe in wins?

 

When the team wins 1 home game all season in the Championship

 

A league we were meant to 'walk' a couple of years ago

 

You still go

 

How do you cope

 

Do you have no brains? Do you not suffer from dissappointment?

 

ARE WE ALL CYBERMEN!!!

 

I can only hope a boycott happens to scare Lowe and hopefully contribute to getting him out and a brighter future. Above poster is dead on though, it needs big names publically advertising or else the cybermen that are Saints fans who still go despite 1 home win all season in the ridiculos hope of a victory.

 

You have a point, but I would suggest that as you are on the other side of the World, perhaps your perspective is a little different to those a bit closer to home. I suspect that there are already a sizeable contingent of those who live at a distance whereby it costs them too much time and expense to get here who have already decided that their attendance is not worth the effort whilst our home record is so dire.

 

But there are indeed many who live at a more convenient distance who I agree continue to attend in the vain hope of a turnaround. However, I feel that the time has now come after that defeat by Doncaster that they might now be prepared to take action if a boycott was well organised, well publicised and well supported by some celebrity elements such as past players as outlined so eloquently and cleverly by CB Fry.

[Bass Playing Saint]

I am already doing it. I haven't been to a game all season and I have no plans to go ever again why that pr*ck is in charge. Why should I flush £50 down the toilet to watch this ****

[Bishop]

I quite often boycott the last 10 minutes of a game

[benjii]

Let's face it, pretty much everyone apart from ST holders is "boycotting" now anyway, whether out of principle or just because they consider it to be a miserable way to spend their Saturday afternoon.

 

I don't have an ST. I've been selective in which games I go to this season. Yesterday was last chance saloon for the team as far as I'm concerned, and I won't be going to any more home games unless there is a positive change in management or board. It is not enjoyable, it is not good value, it is depressing, it is a waste of money.

[Tac-tics]

I heard that a surporters group was planning to pitch invade during a loosing home game.

 

Surely that would make Lowe realise, even if he is up in scotland

[georgeg]

I am not anti Doncaster and it was a nice gesture for them to give us a picture of a train, however, I'm sure like a lot of other supporters I feel aggrieved ( as a small shareholder also) that RL could only find one place to put it, by replacing the LM/FA cup picture.

 

For those good at organising, would you think it a good idea (copyright allowing?) for a protest, to have all willing supporters hold up a picture of the LM/FA cup picture at the Donny match. Most people probably have or have access to a PC and printer.

 

Not exactly a strong anti Lowe protest but just a thought.

 

I like your idea saintalan!

lowe - see this picture I'm holding up - its part of our history - its the day when this city went mad - its the day when the name of Southampton went around the world - oh sorry you wouldnt understand would you!

[St. Jason]

I like your idea saintalan!

lowe - see this picture I'm holding up - its part of our history - its the day when this city went mad - its the day when the name of Southampton went around the world - oh sorry you wouldnt understand would you!

 

apart from the fact that the pr!ck couldn't even be arsed to go to the game, Scotland was more appealing!

[georgeg]

Think it is really sad how an icon is coming across over this.

 

why the hell is it sad - lawrie said it exactly how he and most others saw it at the AGM - that is EXACTLY how lowe presented himself - truly appalling

 

what is he suppose to do listen to all the sh*t lowes coming out with and somehow pretend all is well with the world!

 

its a great shame the AGM wasnt caught on camera for all fans to make their minds up about our "messiah"

[S4INT]

apart from the fact that the pr!ck couldn't even be arsed to go to the game, Scotland was more appealing!

 

TBF he was probably staying away so that the crowd wont direct their anger towards him during the game and will instead get behind the team. He just distracts the support during a game...

 

 

 

...

 

... yes I know!

[St. Jason]

TBF he was probably staying away so that the crowd wont direct their anger towards him during the game and will instead get behind the team. He just distracts the support during a game...

 

 

 

...

 

... yes I know!

 

do you really believe this??? we've played 14 home games and not once have the fans turned against the chairman or manager till yesterday, hasn't stopped us only winning 1 out 14, don't blame us fans, we've done nothing!!!