Nick Illingsworth - the voice of SFC speaks

[thelamprey]

I dont get it, aside from Illingsworths habitual fingerpointing at other fans that I don't agree with (I've seen him leave early last year) He makes a very good point, if season ticket holders had opted to join the saints trust, we the fans could have had alot more say in getting Lowe out and as such people have to take some responsibility instead of wanting something for nothing, expecting other people to do all the work. Having said that I do wonder if certain personalities on that list of the ST top table do put people off.

[Micky]

Whether you agree or disagree with what NI has said, I think that one point has been totally overlooked. It appears to me that the only person who has actually acknowledged him as a 'Spokesperson for many' (and therefore voice of the fans) as opposed to an 'individual expressing an opionion' is the originator of this thread..!

 

Had the originator entitled this thread 'NI's View' or something similar perhaps the debate wouldn't be quite so heated. I agree entirely with Steve, in that Nick is only expressing his view - he is not claiming to speak for anybody other than himself.

 

Quite simply it is we, not he, who have (correctly, incorrectly, stupidly, ill-advisedly, short-sightedly) labelled him as 'the voice of SFC'. Agree or disagree with the views that he has expressed as is your wish - but don't make assumptions as to who he is expressing his views for.

Edited 19 January, 2009 by Micky

[saintinlondon]

And rightly so!!

 

He is the man at the top.

 

He is the man who sanctioned ALL the decisions [while in charge], and therefore MUST shoulder the blame for the problems.

 

In any other industry he would have been gone long ago.

 

I agree with you to an extent. However the rest of the board and those from the previous regime appear to have got off so lightly in comparison. I didnt mean for this to be taken as supportive of lowe but more to question why he alone has taken the heat. Wilde seems to be next in line whilst Crouch seems to have got away with his terrible dealings at SFC unscathed. Clearly there is a huge divide in the fan base now but it is obvious from this thread and many others that some will not listen to reason. Stanley's dismissive responses to Nick's reasonable arguments highlight this.

[Mole]

Whether you agree or disagree with what NI has said, I think that one point has been totally overlooked. It appears to me that the only person who has actually acknowledged him as a 'Spokesperson for many' (and therefore voice of the fans) as opposed to and 'individual expressing an opionion' is the originator of this thread..!

 

Had the originator entitled this thread 'NI's View' or something similar perhaps the debate wouldn't be quite so heated. I agree entirely with Steve, in that Nick is only expressing his view - he is not claiming to speak for anybody other than himself.

 

Agree or disagree with the views that he has expressed as is your wish - but don't make assumptions as to who he is expressing his views for.

 

Because he's taken on the responsibility of being the Chairman of Trust he should respect his position and reign in his personal views and represent the views of the majority. Because he continually gives his own opinions it makes a mockery of his position.

[slickmick]

Your response was hypocritical, you critically suggest that Nick is the voice of the fans and yet you respond with WE.

 

Whether you agree or disagree with what NI has said, I think that one point has been totally overlooked. It appears to me that the only person who has actually acknowledged him as a 'Spokesperson for many' (and therefore voice of the fans) as opposed to and 'individual expressing an opionion' is the originator of this thread..!

 

Had the originator entitled this thread 'NI's View' or something similar perhaps the debate wouldn't be quite so heated. I agree entirely with Steve, in that Nick is only expressing his view - he is not claiming to speak for anybody other than himself.

 

Agree or disagree with the views that he has expressed as is your wish - but don't make assumptions as to who he is expressing his views for.

 

 

Not totally overlooked.

[Weston Super Saint]

I agree with you to an extent. However the rest of the board and those from the previous regime appear to have got off so lightly in comparison. I didnt mean for this to be taken as supportive of lowe but more to question why he alone has taken the heat. Wilde seems to be next in line whilst Crouch seems to have got away with his terrible dealings at SFC unscathed. Clearly there is a huge divide in the fan base now but it is obvious from this thread and many others that some will not listen to reason. Stanley's dismissive responses to Nick's reasonable arguments highlight this.

 

Because if the Chairman / CEO were replaced then doubtless the other members of the board would be replaced too if they weren't up to the job.

 

They are ALL to blame, but the removal of Lowe would hopefully trigger the removal of them all.....

[stevegrant]

I dont get it, aside from Illingsworths habitual fingerpointing at other fans that I don't agree with (I've seen him leave early last year) He makes a very good point, if season ticket holders had opted to join the saints trust, we the fans could have had alot more say in getting Lowe out and as such people have to take some responsibility instead of wanting something for nothing, expecting other people to do all the work. Having said that I do wonder if certain personalities on that list of the ST top table do put people off.

It's entirely possible that that's the case - I've seen posts on here in the past which have basically been along those lines.

 

However, it's a catch-22 situation really. People don't want to get involved if it's the "same old faces", but it usually ends up being predominantly the "same old faces" who are willing to put in the effort to get organisations such as the Trust off the ground.

 

Any "outsider" who does get involved tends to very quickly get fed up and disheartened from the numerous cynical posts on forums which slag off every single thing they do or say, regardless of whether there are merits to them or not, and then you're back to the "same old faces" again...

[slickmick]

Because he's taken on the responsibility of being the Chairman of Trust he should respect his position and reign in his personal views and represent the views of the majority. Because he continually gives his own opinions it makes a mockery of his position.

 

 

So if the echo want to interview him at short notice he should phone round all the members and ask them to vote on their views ?

Or maybe on this occasion he has and most agree with him ?

 

Surely he is not going to share the same views as all the members and no one would resonably expect him too.

He is entitled to his own views is he not ?

If not, then we would never get any comment from a member of the trust.

[saintwarwick]

stanley does that...he has been to one game (due to his suppose self ban on sms) and think he knows what the fan base thinks..

 

Im not saying I do but I dont claim to either.

 

Funny how Stanley has been to only one game at sms and the first mass brawl this season coincided with his return :shock:

[saintwarwick]

LOL, if this is correct. That really is pathetic.

 

 

 

Robin Howard writes on the ST site and i do agree with a lot of what he says, but it's more like reading a blog than articles for a democratic body that acts on behalf of it's members.

 

With the current situation at the club the ST could quadruple it's membership if it represented fans.

 

If you don't like his or the trusts opinions perhaps you can start your own trust

[slickmick]

Funny how Stanley has been to only one game at sms and the first mass brawl this season coincided with his return :shock:

 

 

Thats why in another thread I asked if someone had decked him, tongue in cheek of course. Wouldn't wish that on him.

[Mole]

Funny how Stanley has been to only one game at sms and the first mass brawl this season coincided with his return :shock:

 

The timing of the breaking of my boycott was inspired to say the least. That said the writing was on the wall that this fixture could be the breaking point. This fact only serves to emphasise the incompetence of the stadiums management for not pre-empting it with extra security.

 

That said i don't agree with the shocking scenes of fans fighting fans and i had no part in them.

[Doctoroncall]

I agree with you to an extent. However the rest of the board and those from the previous regime appear to have got off so lightly in comparison. I didnt mean for this to be taken as supportive of lowe but more to question why he alone has taken the heat. Wilde seems to be next in line whilst Crouch seems to have got away with his terrible dealings at SFC unscathed. Clearly there is a huge divide in the fan base now but it is obvious from this thread and many others that some will not listen to reason. Stanley's dismissive responses to Nick's reasonable arguments highlight this.

 

I'm not supporting one side or another in the following observations but the way it seems to me is that, Crouch was taken in by Wilde and backed him in the removal of Lowe. When Crouch 'took' over there was little choice in the way things could be run with too many execs on the board and also he is seen as a supporter of the club.

 

Wilde, promised much, delivered nothing and probably made the situation worst than if Lowe had not been ousted. Too much of a gamble when the club (and plc) was not under the right control or direction.

 

Now if someone else knows different...

[Micky]

Because he's taken on the responsibility of being the Chairman of Trust he should respect his position and reign in his personal views and represent the views of the majority. Because he continually gives his own opinions it makes a mockery of his position.

 

But what are the views of the majority - and how do you find them out? In the first post you tag him as speaking as the voice of SFC fans, and now you say he continually gives his own opinions.

 

You may think that the majority of fans are against Lowe, but how do we actually know this. How many people were at the game on Saturday 15000, but only 3 - 400 saw fit to actually demonstrate against Lowe after the match, was this the majority.

 

As Steve said - NI makes himself available to press sources for interviews - he has to give a balanced view in order to keep credibility, and it is very difficult to know everybodies personal opinion and air it.

[Mole]

If you don't like his or the trusts opinions perhaps you can start your own trust

 

Do the Trust have an opinion?

[swannymere]

I do wonder sometimes if Stanley is a Lowe plant as every post he makes takes a large chunk of credibilty away from the anti-lowe fans out there. By all means have an opinion but at least think through and read you own posts before posting them, your rants are inaccurate and embarrassing.

[saintwarwick]

Do the Trust have an opinion?

 

They must have as you disagreed with them at the start of this thread, incidentally started by you

[saintinlondon]

Because if the Chairman / CEO were replaced then doubtless the other members of the board would be replaced too if they weren't up to the job.

 

They are ALL to blame, but the removal of Lowe would hopefully trigger the removal of them all.....

 

which surely will not be able to happen without good reason. There are plenty of reasons why people would want lowe out that are justified. People have put everything on Lowe and anything arguing against their view, even when it makes complete sense, results in dismissal or being labelled a Lowe Luvvie. I would like to make clear that i am not one of these and that everyone can have their opinion but stanley and those of his strong views can hardly expect respect or to be listened to with their sarcastically toned resonses and refusal to acknowledge sense shown by others.

[Mole]

Do the Trust have an opinion?

 

They must have as you disagreed with them at the start of this thread, incidentally started by you

 

The opinion was NI's and as chairman of the Saints Trust i would expect him to represent his members and reign in his personal opinions. I'd be interested to hear the official Saints Trusts take.

[saintwarwick]

The timing of the breaking of my boycott was inspired to say the least. That said the writing was on the wall that this fixture could be the breaking point. This fact only serves to emphasise the incompetence of the stadiums management for not pre-empting it with extra security.

 

That said i don't agree with the shocking scenes of fans fighting fans and i had no part in them.

 

Perhaps they didn't realise saints fans would be fighting amongst thermselves, I mean it's not natural is it.

[St Marco]

Personally i think enough is enough from Nick Illingsworth. So many times he acts as if he speaks for the fans but yet i've never really met many who share his views. Like his last piece a few months ago. You know the one where he said the fans were to blame for the loses because we didn't get behind the team, remember that one? Here is another one similar to that. He can "understand" the fans being unhappy to lose to Forest but can't "understand" their behaviour after losing to Doncaster because we had a win the previous week to Barnsley.....Is it just me who doesn't quite "understand" that? So it's ok to riot when we have a few loses but when we lose after having a win rioting is wrong?! Nick mate as i said to you waaaaaay back near the start of the season. I said Lowe coming back will do nothing but to divide the fans, we finished last season as a club together. Lowe comes back, Pearson goes and once more were divided. I said by going into the 3rd quarter of the season if we are in the relegation zone and losing to teams around us it will get ugly for the board and manager. We pay a lot of money to watch this team and a lot like me have travelled all over to do so. If you keep losing games you will get relegated. What baffled me the most is you actually thought that if we kept going that way "the fans should take it and keep supporting the club without protesting". It does not take a genius to work out that the momment Lowe returned a lot of people have had it in for him. Reason for that is because of his decisions that eventually lead to our relegation and brought us to where we are now. Your view was and is Lowe could do a lot of good for the club. Well roll on over a year and we look the worse we have ever been. You get so much wrong and seem so out of touch with the actual real fans that i wonder are you actually for real or are you just a wind up merchant? As far as i'm concerned you are a Lowe supporter and always have been, and for that reason alone that makes you out of touch with the real fans. Next time you talk to the bbc or itv local news orsomeone please don't tell them your our official spokesmen because your not. You speak for yourself and your view is your own.

[Mole]

Perhaps they didn't realise saints fans would be fighting amongst thermselves, I mean it's not natural is it.

 

No, it was very sad to see, but they should have realised that the anti lowe feeling was at boiling point.

[saintwarwick]

The opinion was NI's and as chairman of the Saints Trust i would expect him to represent his members and reign in his personal opinions. I'd be interested to hear the official Saints Trusts take.

 

Have you spoken to the other members of the trust to see if they agree or disagree with the chairman of the trust? If not then how do you know it's a personal opinion, oh you don't you are just posting a personal opinion

[saintwarwick]

No, it was very sad to see, but they should have realised that the anti lowe feeling was at boiling point.

 

They still didn't expect fans to fight amongst themselves, maybe anti-Lowe chanting yes but not infighting. Even I did not expect or believe we would EVER fight amongst ourselves.

[Micky]

Personally i think enough is enough from Nick Illingsworth. So many times he acts as if he speaks for the fans but yet i've never really met many who share his views. Like his last piece a few months ago. You know the one where he said the fans were to blame for the loses because we didn't get behind the team, remember that one? Here is another one similar to that. He can "understand" the fans being unhappy to lose to Forest but can't "understand" their behaviour after losing to Doncaster because we had a win the previous week to Barnsley.....Is it just me who doesn't quite "understand" that? So it's ok to riot when we have a few loses but when we lose after having a win rioting is wrong?! Nick mate as i said to you waaaaaay back near the start of the season. I said Lowe coming back will do nothing but to divide the fans, we finished last season as a club together. Lowe comes back, Pearson goes and once more were divided. I said by going into the 3rd quarter of the season if we are in the relegation zone and losing to teams around us it will get ugly for the board and manager. We pay a lot of money to watch this team and a lot like me have travelled all over to do so. If you keep losing games you will get relegated. What baffled me the most is you actually thought that if we kept going that way "the fans should take it and keep supporting the club without protesting". It does not take a genius to work out that the momment Lowe returned a lot of people have had it in for him. Reason for that is because of his decisions that eventually lead to our relegation and brought us to where we are now. Your view was and is Lowe could do a lot of good for the club. Well roll on over a year and we look the worse we have ever been. You get so much wrong and seem so out of touch with the actual real fans that i wonder are you actually for real or are you just a wind up merchant? As far as i'm concerned you are a Lowe supporter and always have been, and for that reason alone that makes you out of touch with the real fans. Next time you talk to the bbc or itv local news orsomeone please don't tell them your our official spokesmen because your not. You speak for yourself and your view is your own.

 

Errr hellooooo, he didn't, hasn't and probably will not...!!!

 

It is us here on this forum that have made the assumption that his views are representative of the majority of Saints fans. I am not particularly a supporter of NI - but in this instance, I think that it is us that need to get this 'opinion' into perspective.

[Fitzhugh Fella]

It's up to the individual, but I would have thought that Duncan would have been the best person for the media to approach.

 

Apart from the fact that he's articulate (not saying NI isn't BTW) what Duncan doesn't know about this club probably isn't worth knowing.

 

However, to repeat myself - I guess it's up to him.

 

Thanks for the vote but unfortunately I could only reasonably speak for me. There are people out there - and on this forum - who think I talk blinkered anti-Lowe hogwash. And fair enough, I could perfectly understand that they wouldn't want my views to be considered representative.

I think Steve made a valid point re NI being amenable and the chair of the Trust but I do think now that NI's opinions to be representative of a minority rather than majority.

[Micky]

Do the Trust have an opinion?

 

That would actually make a more interesting thread, coupled with do they have an 'Action Plan' to address any present 'shortcomings' that they might have identified at the club during the present time.

 

But not knowing enough about the Trust I am unsure if they enjoy free speech and / or action - or are bound from within the Club?

[Mole]

Have you spoken to the other members of the trust to see if they agree or disagree with the chairman of the trust? If not then how do you know it's a personal opinion, oh you don't you are just posting a personal opinion

 

Looking at the Trusts sites latest article (by Robin Howard) it states:

 

The Club is facing a desperate situation which will not be solved overnight; perhaps we will inevitably have to face up to life in Division 1.

But some action has to be taken right now. A performance driven review of manager and club executives followed by rectifying action is the obvious place to start.

 

Therefore the Trusts site is advocating action (in a wishy washy no formulated plan nor leadership way) and yet the so called chairman is singing from his own song sheet.

[Mole]

They still didn't expect fans to fight amongst themselves, maybe anti-Lowe chanting yes but not infighting. Even I did not expect or believe we would EVER fight amongst ourselves.

 

I can't disagree with you on this point, it was bad.

[St Marco]

Errr hellooooo, he didn't, hasn't and probably will not...!!!

 

It is us here on this forum that have made the assumption that his views are representative of the majority of Saints fans. I am not particularly a supporter of NI - but in this instance, I think that it is us that need to get this 'opinion' into perspective.

 

Mate i'm talking in general. Everytime he goes on the bbc, talks to the echo etc.. he is said to be the official spokesmen. He can tell them he is not. But if he does that, does it make what he is saying newsworthy and printable? No. Because official spokesmen turns into babbling Saints fan, nobody will bother showing/printing that would they.

 

Nick is entitled to his opinion, everyone is. But sometimes some common sense would go a long way. Nobody wants to see people protesting, it isn't good for people, but we did things his way, we spent 28 games sat cheering the lads on without any slight hint of unrest except for the occasional boo's. He can't have it both ways. As far as i'm concerned bar this one game the Saints fans both home and away have been great, they are not the problem they did their part, they are entitled to voice their concerns in a way it will get heard. We did his way and where did it bring us?

[stevegrant]

Looking at the Trusts sites latest article (by Robin Howard) it states:

 

The Club is facing a desperate situation which will not be solved overnight; perhaps we will inevitably have to face up to life in Division 1.

But some action has to be taken right now. A performance driven review of manager and club executives followed by rectifying action is the obvious place to start.

 

Therefore the Trusts site is advocating action (in a wishy washy no formulated plan nor leadership way) and yet the so called chairman is singing from his own song sheet.

Just now you were saying that Robin's articles were more like a personal blog rather than the views of the organisation which he represents... make your mind up, either it's "only a personal blog" or it's a Trust statement of policy - it can't really be both.

[Mole]

Just now you were saying that Robin's articles were more like a personal blog rather than the views of the organisation which he represents... make your mind up, either it's "only a personal blog" or it's a Trust statement of policy - it can't really be both.

 

Steve i read the ST articles on a regular basis and they never have substance to them. The quote i posted up was very vague (as i pointed out) and at this turbulent time in the clubs history that is poor form. Therefore it's more akin to a blog than a real fans groups site.

[Micky]

Mate i'm talking in general. Everytime he goes on the bbc, talks to the echo etc.. he is said to be the official spokesmen. He can tell them he is not. But if he does that, does it make what he is saying newsworthy and printable? No. Because official spokesmen turns into babbling Saints fan, nobody will bother showing/printing that would they.

 

Nick is entitled to his opinion, everyone is. But sometimes some common sense would go a long way. Nobody wants to see people protesting, it isn't good for people, but we did things his way, we spent 28 games sat cheering the lads on without any slight hint of unrest except for the occasional boo's. He can't have it both ways. As far as i'm concerned bar this one game the Saints fans both home and away have been great, they are not the problem they did their part, they are entitled to voice their concerns in a way it will get heard. We did his way and where did it bring us?

 

Agreed it won't - and your probably right in that the perception is that he speaks for the majority - but, the fact remains, that is not NI's fault.

 

You could have a Sky Sports or local station camera shoved in your face before or after a game and somebody ask you for a comment - you too might very well be percieved to be taking for the majority of the fans - but what opinion would you give. It would be largely your own.

 

I have no problem with the aftermatch protest - as far as I am aware it was a vocal but peaceful event - and after the fare that has been served it was sort of inevitable. (The fighting is another subject entirely). NI may have differing views to ours, but as Steve has pointed out, the Trust is open for everybody to join and air their views should they so wish.

[Frank's cousin]

With respect Frank if Nick Illigsworth is saying stuff you agree with then he's speaking for the minority.

 

With respect Stanley, I agree with some things you say, in fact I would go as far to say i agree with some of what 99.9999% of posters on here say...just not all of it. no different from my opinion on Lowe, have like some ideas hes had and defended those ideas...does not mean he has not failed in many other areas. That is all what NIck was saying and what I was agreeing with...

 

And no, NIck does not speak for fans - he speaks for NIck and anyone who agrees with him... I get just as ****ed off as anyone when folks claim to speak for a majority with no mandate, but that does not make his opinion any less valid IMHO.

[Mole]

I get just as ****ed off as anyone when folks claim to speak for a majority with no mandate.

 

Shall we talk about SOS?

[Frank's cousin]

Agreed it won't - and your probably right in that the perception is that he speaks for the majority - but, the fact remains, that is not NI's fault.

 

You could have a Sky Sports or local station camera shoved in your face before or after a game and somebody ask you for a comment - you too might very well be percieved to be taking for the majority of the fans - but what opinion would you give. It would be largely your own.

 

I have no problem with the aftermatch protest - as far as I am aware it was and vocal but peaceful event - and after the fare that has been served it was sort of inevitable. (The fighting is another subject entirely). NI may have differing views to ours, but as Steve has pointed out, the Trust is open for everybody to join and air their views should they so wish.

 

I would add that if anything it balances opinion. How often diod we see soundbites canvassed by teh media in teh street without even asking whether these folk attended games or supported saints, but they all said their piece on LOwe and Wilde and suddenly its reported as fact that fans are all aginst this or that... its wrong, but it works both ways.

[Frank's cousin]

Shall we talk about SOS?

 

Sure, never said it was representative...

[Mole]

Sure' date=' never said it was representative...[/quote']

 

But you did all agree, prior to the meeting, that you would INSIST to Wilde that the discussion was minuted and posted back on TSF.

 

And what happened in practice?

[Micky]

I would add that if anything it balances opinion. How often diod we see soundbites canvassed by teh media in teh street without even asking whether these folk attended games or supported saints' date=' but they all said their piece on LOwe and Wilde and suddenly its reported as fact that fans are all aginst this or that... its wrong, but it works both ways.[/quote']

 

Indeed it does - media reporter speaks to 4 people at a match and 3 of them express the same opinion, therefore the majority opinion is reported. The fact that there were 75000* fans there means nothing to the reporter - he has his quotes.

 

*(It was an FA Cup Replay at Old Trafford that (in my dreams) we won 2 - 0)

[TijuanaTim]

I totally care what Nick says, not saying I agree with it, but completely respect it. Nick has been hard core Saints ever since I can remember. He, like most of us, wants what's best for the team and the fans.

 

I will read and choose to disagree/agree with his illiterate but inteligent view and will carry on having less respect for those that name call due to a difference of opinion and who post those childish crazy eyed emoticons.

 

When you disagree with another Saints viewpoint that does not make them an 'idiot' - 'fool' etc, it just highlights someone's potential lack of comprehension.

 

This ain't personal against anyone, let's disagree and debate, it's healthy. We will never all agree, but if we embrace a common goal, say relative success for the team and enjoyment/happiness for the majority of fans, then we can hear others viewpoints and hopefully strengthen.

[Snowballs2]

But you did all agree, prior to the meeting, that you would INSIST to Wilde that the discussion was minuted and posted back on TSF.

 

And what happened in practice?

 

 

 

Don't lets drag upmy favourite failure AGAIN. Nothing unites this board of Directors more than supporters trying to kill each other ...metaphorically

[Mole]

Don't lets drag upmy favourite failure AGAIN. Nothing unites this board of Directors more than supporters trying to kill each other ...metaphorically

 

OK.

[Frank's cousin]

But you did all agree, prior to the meeting, that you would INSIST to Wilde that the discussion was minuted and posted back on TSF.

 

And what happened in practice?

 

It failed. Wilde did not play ball, we all left with egg on face... not much else to talk about, but we learned at least one thing - Wilde is manipulative.

 

I never had a problem with fans criticising it because it failed... but there was an element of jealousy there from thsoe criticising it BEFORE it failed...

[Mole]

It failed. Wilde did not play ball, we all left with egg on face... not much else to talk about, but we learned at least one thing - Wilde is manipulative.

 

I never had a problem with fans criticising it because it failed... but there was an element of jealousy there from thsoe criticising it BEFORE it failed...

 

The criticisms before hand were because you advertised it on TSF and then stalled on commiting to report back the findings. I pointed out that you'd be used if you weren't careful and for that reason it should be minuted. Once you all agreed that you'd insist it was minuted no-one really had a problem.

 

You learned Wilde was manipulative?

 

You were stitched up like kippers as i said you would be if you weren't careful.

 

Jealousy didn't come into it Frank, i was trying to be helpful and in hindsight i'm sure you'll agree it would have been wise to honour your comittment to fans to insist the meeting was minuted.

[Frank's cousin]

The criticisms before hand were because you advertised it on TSF and then stalled on commiting to report back the findings. I pointed out that you'd be used if you weren't careful and for that reason it should be minuted. Once you all agreed that you'd insist it was minuted no-one really had a problem.

 

You learned Wilde was manipulative?

 

You were stitched up like kippers as i said you would be if you weren't careful.

 

Jealousy didn't come into it Frank, i was trying to be helpful and in hindsight i'm sure you'll agree it would have been wise to honour your comittment to fans to insist the meeting was minuted.

 

Maybe, but iwe would have ended up with a blank sheet of paper...

[Snowballs2]

It failed. Wilde did not play ball, we all left with egg on face... not much else to talk about, but we learned at least one thing - Wilde is manipulative.

 

I never had a problem with fans criticising it because it failed... but there was an element of jealousy there from thsoe criticising it BEFORE it failed...

 

Dangerous to try and wind me up again over this, I had hoped you would let sleeping dogs lie...However if you remember I was the biggest critic, I still stand by my original point that the group was self appointed and as I said at the time appeared to be working for personal glory.

I think that this should stay burried

[Frank's cousin]

Dangerous to try and wind me up again over this, I had hoped you would let sleeping dogs lie...However if you remember I was the biggest critic, I still stand by my original point that the group was self appointed and as I said at the time appeared to be working for personal glory.

I think that this should stay burried

 

...and look wher it got me ;-) I have no hard feelings about it to those who criticised, but i would do it again to simply have the cahnce of meeting and asking questions - it was interesting from that perspective, but sad as it achieved nothing. I would say though, that personal glory did not come into it - I really dont think anyone there that day was thinking about what it could do from that perspective. Personal information fair enough - who would turn down the opportunity?, but it was genuinely designed to try anything positive ... sadly not to be.

[manji]

I think the Illingsworth article makes a lot of sense.The only way you would have a problem with is if you were the type of dimwit that sees everything in black and white.

[beatlesaint]

I personally think Illingsworth has missed the point.

 

Ok fair enough you cannot blame Lowe for everything (although Lowe himself will not take ANY blame whatsoever for anything that has gone wrong - anyone at the AGM would be able to testify to that)

 

The whole problem with Lowe is his arrogance, his pomposity and his manner in talking down to people he thinks are not worthy of him. And that is the vast majority of Southampton supporters. The way he speaks to people who do not tow the line, do not agree with what he is doing or what he is saying is disgraceful. When staff at St Marys are firghtened that one word out of place will result in them losing their jobs, thats when there is a problem with an individual. Anyone care to ask Mary Corbett for instance how he used to speak to Harry Redknapp as an example. After hearing about Redknapp's treatment at the hands of Lowe I can fully understand why he left and ran off back down the road, and i detested him for the way he left us, but now i can see why.

 

Illingsworth needs to understand that for the majority it is not who is to blame for whats in the past, it is who is going to give us, and this club a future. Many of us believe Lowe will not, and the evidence for that belief is the Dutch experiment that he will never admit, IMHO, has gone very very wrong, the false economy in bringing in loan players and signings that do not feature - Gasmi, Pulis, Robertson, Peckhart to name but four, whilst loaning out players that could have helped us out of this mess - Rasiak, Stern John, and hopefully if he is back to stay, Saga. Surely just having one of those three for the whole season would have worked out cheaper than the 4 wages of the players listed....or the larger attendances to see a winning team would have gone towards that players salary. It is simply false economy.....and as someone mentioned yesterday now the Police will be required for the remaining home games at £30k a match, Lowe is costing us over £250k for the rest of the season on Police alone. We all know those fights on Saturday would not have occured if he had nothing to do with this club.

 

He is a catalyst for divide and conquer mentality, he is divisive, he is doing what he wants and that is splitting the Saints fans into manageable factions. The sum of the parts is never as good or powerful as the whole and he is winning because he now knows supporters are fighting amongst themselves and can be branded by him as "mindless hooligans" - you can hear him say it.

 

So Illingsworth should look closely at what is going on NOW, cos we can only live in the present. And the present under Rupert Lowe will give us no future worth having.

[aintforever]

My problem with what Illingsworth said is that he has totally avoided the issue.

 

Most Saints fans accept that we are skint, the reason for the level of hatred is the fact that Lowe sacked Pearson and bulldozed through his own experimental ideas in his usual arrogant style. On Saturday it became obvious that his experiment will probably get us relegated.

 

Illingsworth totally avoids the issue - WHY?