JohnnyFartPants Posted 19 January, 2009 Share Posted 19 January, 2009 My problem with what Illingsworth said is that he has totally avoided the issue. 1Most Saints fans accept that we are skint, the reason for the level of hatred is 2the 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? 1 They don't 2 He didn't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 19 January, 2009 Author Share Posted 19 January, 2009 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. There you go Manji, it's only £10 to join. http://www.saintstrust.co.uk/membership.php You can go out canvassing for them in your Saints Go Wilde T-Shirt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 19 January, 2009 Share Posted 19 January, 2009 1 They don't 2 He didn't 1 I think most fans do, they just dont accept the experiments 2 Sacked/mutual consented/gardening leave/contract not renewed = He was kicked out by Lowe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BARCELONASAINT Posted 19 January, 2009 Share Posted 19 January, 2009 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. Ah see you have identified the problem so well. I only hope to god that Southampton fans are not the only bunch of dimwit fans in the land!! It's what ****es me off so much about our fans, everything is black and white.....sometimes i really believe we totally deserve the s h i t we are in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 19 January, 2009 Share Posted 19 January, 2009 1 They don't 2 He didn't Correct (as far as I know). I don't think the majority of the fans realise just how limited our finances are. We are broke, worse than broke,we are soldiering on because companies have agreed to give us more time to pay.I don't doubt that any one of a few creditors could put us into administration tomorrow. We can't afford any players, if we played those that we could really afford we'd be scraping them off of recs and commercial houses league teams. You've just all got to get this into perspective WE HAVE NO MONEY,in fact less than that. Don't start with your "why did we sign xxx then, we have to honour our obligations in the reserves league,the academy league and so on. We pay Pulis ,Gasmi and all that virtually nothing, probably less than £500 a week in some cases.We have what we can afford to pay for or persuade others to pay for us. We couldn't afford Pearson, Jan Poortvliet probably takes home about 3K a month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Saint Posted 19 January, 2009 Share Posted 19 January, 2009 Correct (as far as I know). I don't think the majority of the fans realise just how limited our finances are. We are broke, worse than broke,we are soldiering on because companies have agreed to give us more time to pay.I don't doubt that any one of a few creditors could put us into administration tomorrow. We can't afford any players, if we played those that we could really afford we'd be scraping them off of recs and commercial houses league teams. You've just all got to get this into perspective WE HAVE NO MONEY,in fact less than that. Don't start with your "why did we sign xxx then, we have to honour our obligations in the reserves league,the academy league and so on. We pay Pulis ,Gasmi and all that virtually nothing, probably less than £500 a week in some cases.We have what we can afford to pay for or persuade others to pay for us. We couldn't afford Pearson, Jan Poortvliet probably takes home about 3K a month. It is a bit more than that a month Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 19 January, 2009 Share Posted 19 January, 2009 I agree with almost all nick is saying here and think, sadly, that your response stanley sums up the misguided views of many of the anti lowe vigilantes. whilst i agree that he has much to answer for and has made some bad calls he is clearly not to blame for everything. to think so is madness but I dont see that as the problem. To me your response to nick's comment about our situation not being entirely lowe's fault highlights the personal hatred towards lowe by many of the fans. To an extent this hatred (although strong) I agree can be justified but it has now become totally irrational and a case of him taking the flak for everything. Your inability to accept any valid points from N I (personal reasons again??) also shows a complete lack of sense on your part and sadly you are not the only one. shame. Totally regardless of the rights and wrongs of this whole scenario, whether those who apportion blame to Lowe individually, or to those on whose behalf he acted as Chairman, the fact remains that he is the most divisive person in the entire history of this club. Clearly we cannot make progress when such a person is the figurehead of the club, backed up by another hugely unpopular personality in the Quisling. So whatever the degree of opinion and apportionment of blame that may of may not attach to him, either partly or mostly, doesn't change the conclusion that most have reached from an ever wider spectrum of the fan base; that we cannot begin to make progress in healing the wounds and divisions whilst he retains any position on the board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyFartPants Posted 19 January, 2009 Share Posted 19 January, 2009 1 I think most fans do, they just dont accept the experiments 2 Sacked/mutual consented/gardening leave/contract not renewed = He was kicked out by Lowe. 1 Most fans act as if we are able to make many decisions still. We are so skint we can't. 2 He was offered a wage we could afford to pay him. He chose to seek work elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 19 January, 2009 Share Posted 19 January, 2009 It is a bit more than that a month Probably not much though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lunatic Fridge Posted 19 January, 2009 Share Posted 19 January, 2009 Absolutely with you Beatlesaint. Illingworth and his cronies have had ample opportunity to get off the fence in recent years and be constructive. Every interview as "spokesperson" of Saints support I have seen makes lame excuses for Lowe and his actions. Time to exit stage left Nick - events have overtaken you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 19 January, 2009 Author Share Posted 19 January, 2009 We couldn't afford Pearson I don't agree with this. If rumour is to be believed then Jan Paulsgrove was lined up before Lowe even got back in. Even if Pearson was on more money then this would have been ofset by the higher gates we'd have got under him even with Lowe at the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 19 January, 2009 Share Posted 19 January, 2009 Correct (as far as I know). I don't think the majority of the fans realise just how limited our finances are. We are broke, worse than broke,we are soldiering on because companies have agreed to give us more time to pay.I don't doubt that any one of a few creditors could put us into administration tomorrow. We can't afford any players, if we played those that we could really afford we'd be scraping them off of recs and commercial houses league teams. You've just all got to get this into perspective WE HAVE NO MONEY,in fact less than that. Don't start with your "why did we sign xxx then, we have to honour our obligations in the reserves league,the academy league and so on. We pay Pulis ,Gasmi and all that virtually nothing, probably less than £500 a week in some cases.We have what we can afford to pay for or persuade others to pay for us. We couldn't afford Pearson, Jan Poortvliet probably takes home about 3K a month. Hmmmmmmmm That would be the same as Pearson then - who we couldn't afford :shock: http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?p=169578#post169578 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 19 January, 2009 Share Posted 19 January, 2009 I dont blame Lowe completely for this mess Big suprise there Nick. i do content that there is a place and time for such protests and the timing yesterday was, lets say, not great. Like we give a **** what you think. I have spoken to a few supporters today and several of them have said the same thing, that when the first Doncaster goal went in it was the final straw and that was why the fans turned so quickly, I dont buy that Of course you don't Nick, you are god. the time for protesting was after the game not in the middle of it. Do shut up. I do understand what supporters are feeling and their frustrations You don't understand the feeling amongst the fanbase. I reiterate, Lowe, Crouch & Wilde would then have no say in running the club, appointing managers or signing players, all they would be responsible for would be appointing this Chief Executive, setting him a budget and then monitoring his performance to ensure he was doing his job properly. OK for some supporters it wouldnt be the total removal of Lowe from Saints, but it would remove him from the day to day running of the Club and accusations of interference. It would not remove any of them from accusations of interference you fool. If supporters want to protest they need to do it with a united front and before and after games, not during Like we give a **** what you think. The Saints Trust offfers fans a central point to rally round I don't think so. Are you a 5 year old??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 19 January, 2009 Author Share Posted 19 January, 2009 More from Nick Illingsworth - chairman of the Saints Trust Lets be blunt this was a shameful day in the history of Southampton Football Club. At half time it was anyones game, in truth Saints could have been winning 4-2, however when Doncaster scored straight after the break with a goal that many considered to be off side, the fans ensured that their chances of getting back into the game where severely hampered. Now I am the first person to acknowledge that supporters have a right to make themselves heard, but there is a time and a place for doing so and for the supporters to turn with 44 minutes plus injury time to go was shocking and something I have rarely seen in a football ground in 37 years of watching football. The mumblings were there in the first half, groups of fans in the Northam were trying to start anti Lowe chants, why ? they were watching a team who had won their last game and drew their previous one with a win now pushing them up the table. But once the team went a goal behind that was it for many and they lost interest in the game, preferring to direct abuse against Rupert Lowe, this was of absolutely no benefit to a team trying to get back into the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 19 January, 2009 Share Posted 19 January, 2009 Hmmmmmmmm That would be the same as Pearson then - who we couldn't afford :shock: http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?p=169578#post169578 3K a month (or 5K or 6K) isn't the same as 3K a week +. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyFartPants Posted 19 January, 2009 Share Posted 19 January, 2009 More from Nick Illingsworth - chairman of the Saints Trust All pretty factual though. There was 44 + minutes to go, they were one goal behind, it didn't help the team and Rupert Lowe did get abuse. What part didn't you like? I wouldn't go as far as to say it was shameful though. Fans are entitled to do the predictable and boring anti-chairman chants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 19 January, 2009 Author Share Posted 19 January, 2009 What part didn't you like? This part where he has a go at those who sang anti Lowe chants. the fans ensured that their chances of getting back into the game where severely hampered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 19 January, 2009 Share Posted 19 January, 2009 1 Most fans act as if we are able to make many decisions still. We are so skint we can't. 2 He was offered a wage we could afford to pay him. He chose to seek work elsewhere. We have brought in 14 PLAYERS now since the end of last season, including spending a million odd on Scheiderlin - you are clearly wrong on both counts, there was scope to do things differently and to keep Pearson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 19 January, 2009 Share Posted 19 January, 2009 3K a month (or 5K or 6K) isn't the same as 3K a week +. ooopppsss. Missed that. But I doubt very much that JP is on £36k per annum..... Then add on all the other Dutch coaches to that total. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyFartPants Posted 19 January, 2009 Share Posted 19 January, 2009 This part where he has a go at those who sang anti Lowe chants. Because it was incorrect or hard to take? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 19 January, 2009 Author Share Posted 19 January, 2009 Because it was incorrect or hard to take? Because he totally misses the point. Fans had had enough and could take no more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Village Saint Posted 19 January, 2009 Share Posted 19 January, 2009 I dont blame Lowe completely for this mess Big suprise there Nick. i do content that there is a place and time for such protests and the timing yesterday was, lets say, not great. Like we give a **** what you think. I have spoken to a few supporters today and several of them have said the same thing, that when the first Doncaster goal went in it was the final straw and that was why the fans turned so quickly, I dont buy that Of course you don't Nick, you are god. the time for protesting was after the game not in the middle of it. Do shut up. I do understand what supporters are feeling and their frustrations You don't understand the feeling amongst the fanbase. I reiterate, Lowe, Crouch & Wilde would then have no say in running the club, appointing managers or signing players, all they would be responsible for would be appointing this Chief Executive, setting him a budget and then monitoring his performance to ensure he was doing his job properly. OK for some supporters it wouldnt be the total removal of Lowe from Saints, but it would remove him from the day to day running of the Club and accusations of interference. It would not remove any of them from accusations of interference you fool. If supporters want to protest they need to do it with a united front and before and after games, not during Like we give a **** what you think. The Saints Trust offfers fans a central point to rally round I don't think so. Very sensible point of view from Nick Illingsworth which seems based in reality. The reply is typical of that rather vocal minority that posts on here without engaing their brains first. Sadly their actions contribute significantly to the sense of unrest that could yet drag this club down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 19 January, 2009 Share Posted 19 January, 2009 Very sensible point of view from Nick Illingsworth which seems based in reality. But the debate is whether it is the point of view of the Saints Trust that NI represents..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hugh Posted 19 January, 2009 Share Posted 19 January, 2009 We have brought in 14 PLAYERS now since the end of last season, including spending a million odd on Scheiderlin - you are clearly wrong on both counts, there was scope to do things differently and to keep Pearson. Agreed. It is quite possible to manage a team on restricted finance. Just look at Swansea. http://www.myswans.co.uk/news/Prospering-very-nicely,-TA.aspx According to that, the whole of last week-ends first team cost less than £1m. They beat Reading 2-0 and Dyer was a star apparently..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyFartPants Posted 19 January, 2009 Share Posted 19 January, 2009 Because he totally misses the point. Fans had had enough and could take no more. I think you are missing the point. The point he made is that the booing will have done nothing to help the team. He is not lying, make stuff up or twisting anything. He has merely stated a fact which you can't argue with and don't like to read, yet is true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 19 January, 2009 Author Share Posted 19 January, 2009 I think you are missing the point. The point he made is that the booing will have done nothing to help the team. He is not lying, make stuff up or twisting anything. He has merely stated a fact which you can't argue with and don't like to read, yet is true. Is it true though? Apparently the support has been 100% behind the team every home game til then and look at the results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hugh Posted 19 January, 2009 Share Posted 19 January, 2009 But the debate is whether it is the point of view of the Saints Trust that NI represents..... I can't ever remember that he or any interviewer have claimed that he does. He is speaking for himself, as the highest profile Saints supporter that was available. If anyone thinks they can do better on a regular basis, then go ahead, knock yourself out. Until that moment arrives, constant whinging (and that is all it is) about the pros and cons of what Nick does, or doesn't say, is utterly futile. I often disagree with him (particularly over his less than lukewarm appraisal of Pearson), but will always stand up for his right to say it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 19 January, 2009 Author Share Posted 19 January, 2009 But the debate is whether it is the point of view of the Saints Trust that NI represents..... Bingo. And should NI reign in his personal views given the fact he's in a position of influence? With the position of chairman comes responsibility and for me this means representing the views of the majority of fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyFartPants Posted 19 January, 2009 Share Posted 19 January, 2009 Is it true though? Apparently the support has been 100% behind the team every home game til then and look at the results. He wasn't talking about "until then" was he. Isolate it. He said it wouldn't have helped the players, was that wrong in your opinion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 19 January, 2009 Share Posted 19 January, 2009 Agreed. It is quite possible to manage a team on restricted finance. Just look at Swansea. http://www.myswans.co.uk/news/Prospering-very-nicely,-TA.aspx According to that, the whole of last week-ends first team cost less than £1m. They beat Reading 2-0 and Dyer was a star apparently..... Good point. You need a homogenous squad though.They're either all on mega-bucks or all on reasonable pay. When you have idlers doing nothing for a lot of money and kids on very low pay there's bound to be a fundamental lack of harmony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hugh Posted 19 January, 2009 Share Posted 19 January, 2009 With the position of chairman comes responsibility and for me this means representing the views of the majority of fans. If he is being interviewed as chairman of the trust, as opposed to being interviewed as an individual who happens to be chairman of the trust, then I would expect him to consider the official view of the trust. That could well be something entirely different to the view of the majority of fans. Simple really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 19 January, 2009 Author Share Posted 19 January, 2009 He wasn't talking about "until then" was he. Isolate it. He said it wouldn't have helped the players, was that wrong in your opinion? Everything about what Nick writes is wrong. He's chairman of the Trust and therefore he should reign in his personal views and speak for the majority. The scenes were desperate in SMS on Saturday and at such times the chairman of the Saints Trust should understand the vibes and be a voice for all those frustrated people. The Saints Trust should be there for the fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 19 January, 2009 Share Posted 19 January, 2009 Everything about what Nick writes is wrong. He's chairman of the Trust and therefore he should reign in his personal views and speak for the majority. The scenes were desperate in SMS on Saturday and at such times the chairman of the Saints Trust should understand the vibes and be a voice for all those frustrated people. The Saints Trust should be there for the fans. Who else is on the Trust board with Nick nowadays, Stanley? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 19 January, 2009 Share Posted 19 January, 2009 Everything about what Nick writes is wrong. He's chairman of the Trust and therefore he should reign in his personal views and speak for the majority. The scenes were desperate in SMS on Saturday and at such times the chairman of the Saints Trust should understand the vibes and be a voice for all those frustrated people. The Saints Trust should be there for the fans. Incorrect, the Saints Trust should be there for the 320 (or so) souls who are up to date with their annual subscriptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 19 January, 2009 Author Share Posted 19 January, 2009 Who else is on the Trust board with Nick nowadays, Stanley? I presume this is accurate. ST members (as of oct 08 ) 320 The committee comprises 9 people: Nick Illingsworth, Robin Howard, Jason McFeat, Paul Radders, Bert Curtis, Chris Dodman, Ed Young, Fiona Harrison and James Jablonski. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 19 January, 2009 Share Posted 19 January, 2009 I don't know these people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 19 January, 2009 Author Share Posted 19 January, 2009 Incorrect, the Saints Trust should be there for the 320 (or so) souls who are up to date with their annual subscriptions. With a chairman who spoke on behalf of the thousands who want Lowe Out that figure would be much higher. Make no mistake NI is a hindrance to membership figures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manji Posted 19 January, 2009 Share Posted 19 January, 2009 I presume this is accurate. Never heard of any of them.Some of them sound like made up names to me lol ! Wheres Ben Dover and Paddy O'Phile ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 19 January, 2009 Author Share Posted 19 January, 2009 Never heard of any of them.Some of them sound like made up names to me lol ! Wheres Ben Dover and Paddy O'Phile ? That's no bad thing though IMO. Many of the familiar names have too much old baggage. A new face in charge is probably what's needed. (so long as it's one that Manji doesn't agree with) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channon's Sideburns Posted 19 January, 2009 Share Posted 19 January, 2009 It is a bit more than that a month IN that case..we're being robbed. I'd do his job for FREE, and do a better job as well...he can't manage a coffee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuRomseySaint Posted 19 January, 2009 Share Posted 19 January, 2009 Sorry but having anything to do with Saints Trust automatically rules him out of having any credability to his report. WHAT have the Saints Trust done? Seriously, our club is in the middle of it's most turbulant time of our history, on the very brink of extinction. The last 'action' that the ST took was to look into ticket reductions, with no result of that investigation published, although Lukers recent article saying they intend to do it again suggests what they were told to do with their 'investigation'.... On the same day, they published results of a 'survey' on members whom have not renewed ( I thought they were not given an opportunity to renew, just assumed they would and added to the numbers ) What happened as a result of this survey? I can't see any change, infact it's been over 2 months since anything other than a blog. The Saints Trust is a complete joke, the people running it are making the figures up. I tell you something.... I will happily meet with any member of the Saints Trust, show me 838 members who have paid their subscription fee in the last 1 year and/or have 'opted in' to join the ST and I will donate £100 to Danny Wallaces charity, that is my promise to you. The TRUTH is that the Saints Trust have very few ( I would estimate less than 50 ) paid-up members, I could go round my local pub, get a few names and be justified in saying I represent a larger base of fans. Saints Trust is a joke who are ripping fans off, if they are not taking money off people and giving f-all back, they are fraudulantly using peoples names to completely over-exaggerate their membership numbers. Now, if they pulled their fingers out, with the feeling at the moment, they could easily get their membership up to 838, but when the real number is less that 10% of that, why are they trying to mislead Saints fans and the board of SFC into thinking they represent a significant amount of fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VectisSaint Posted 19 January, 2009 Share Posted 19 January, 2009 Does the Saints Truss still exist? Or is NI now the Saints Truss? Sadly an organisation that should have been successful has been hijacked by the usual crew and has therefore become a meaningless sideshow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 19 January, 2009 Author Share Posted 19 January, 2009 Sorry but having anything to do with Saints Trust automatically rules him out of having any credability to his report. WHAT have the Saints Trust done? Seriously, our club is in the middle of it's most turbulant time of our history, on the very brink of extinction. The last 'action' that the ST took was to look into ticket reductions, with no result of that investigation published, although Lukers recent article saying they intend to do it again suggests what they were told to do with their 'investigation'.... On the same day, they published results of a 'survey' on members whom have not renewed ( I thought they were not given an opportunity to renew, just assumed they would and added to the numbers ) What happened as a result of this survey? I can't see any change, infact it's been over 2 months since anything other than a blog. The Saints Trust is a complete joke, the people running it are making the figures up. I tell you something.... I will happily meet with any member of the Saints Trust, show me 838 members who have paid their subscription fee in the last 1 year and/or have 'opted in' to join the ST and I will donate £100 to Danny Wallaces charity, that is my promise to you. The TRUTH is that the Saints Trust have very few ( I would estimate less than 50 ) paid-up members, I could go round my local pub, get a few names and be justified in saying I represent a larger base of fans. Saints Trust is a joke who are ripping fans off, if they are not taking money off people and giving f-all back, they are fraudulantly using peoples names to completely over-exaggerate their membership numbers. Now, if they pulled their fingers out, with the feeling at the moment, they could easily get their membership up to 838, but when the real number is less that 10% of that, why are they trying to mislead Saints fans and the board of SFC into thinking they represent a significant amount of fans. You're right about the website, it is a joke. The articles are good and fairplay to Robin Howard for doing them but they are more like a blog (i actually said this myself earlier in the thread) but tob be fair they are lacking direction and leadership from the top it would seem, and the site in general is way out of date and has been for an inexcusably (sic) long time. These are the latest figures: ST members (as of oct 08 ) 320 The committee comprises 9 people: Nick Illingsworth, Robin Howard, Jason McFeat, Paul Radders, Bert Curtis, Chris Dodman, Ed Young, Fiona Harrison and James Jablonski. So is someone going to challenge Nick to be the Chair of the ST? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 19 January, 2009 Share Posted 19 January, 2009 Originally Posted by Nick Illinsworth Lets nail a few things down from the start of this piece, so there can be no doubt as to my thoughts on several matters. Firstly I dont think it is the fault of the supporters as to the situation that Southampton Football Club finds itself in today, its in this mess not just because of the actions of one man but those of a number of people all of whom have served on the board of the club in the past decade or so. Agree Fully. Secondly as I have just said, I dont blame Lowe completely for this mess, but that doesnt mean that I am in any way sticking up for him, I am merely calling it as I see it, I blame Lowe for those things that he is responsible for, not for that which he isnt and i apply that to every other director of Southampton Football Club past and present. Fair one... but out of 10 I think we can blame Lowe for lets say 7/10 of the fatal mistakes that have led this Club to another relegation under his leadership So to cover the protests at the Doncaster game, once again I fully support the rights of every supporter to protest against this regime or indeed any regime running the Club, however i do content that there is a place and time for such protests and the timing yesterday was, lets say, not great. Irrelevant. It happened. And it happened later than it should have done. I have spoken to a few supporters today and several of them have said the same thing, that when the first Doncaster goal went in it was the final straw and that was why the fans turned so quickly, I dont buy that, the team is on the back of a victory at Barnsley and a credible home draw with Reading, when Forest scored a month ago at St Mary's I could have concurred with it being the straw that broke the camels back, coming after a string of defeats, but until that Doncaster goal the form for the past two games has been good and with 45 minutes of the game left we still had every chance to get back in the game and a win would have dragged us out of the relegation zone, the time for protesting was after the game not in the middle of it. I think I am with the supporters you spoke to Nick. We've supported this rubbish for about 10 games longer than we should have and now we're almost certain to relegate. Had the fans lost it 10 games ago we may have seen a change by now. But I do understand what supporters are feeling and their frustrations, however its difficult to see what can be changed in the short term, of course the ideal thing would be for the major shareholders to all get together and work towards getting the club on an even keel, but the blunt facts is that all of them are glazed over with hatred for those in the other camp and are past the stage of putting the Club before their own agendas. Agree 110%. Goot Point. That being the case there are only two ways for lwoe to leave the club, that is to be bought out by other shareholders or a complete and utter takeover, fact is the latter is the only truly workable option, it needs a complete change within the club no more no less, last season we were on the very brink of disaster, in some respects it would have been better for Lowe that we were relegated, fans would have blamed Crouch & Pearson and he could have then came in with no real alternative options, luckily we didnt go down, meaning that we find ourselves with the same old boardroom arguments. Lines 1-3 Most sensible thing I have read from Nick for a while - well said. Personally Im sick of it and change has to be made, but make no mistake unless we want to go on repeating the last couple of seasons endlessly we need that change to be drastic, with no director curent or past involved with the club. Starting to like Nick again... But if there are no buyers out there how can we move forward, simply speaking it would only be possible if Lowe, Crouch & Wilde agreed to work together on the PLC board, but did not involve themselves with the day to day running of the fotball club, that would mean appointing a Chief Executive to be responsible for the day to day running of the club, reporting back to the major shareholders on the PLC Board, I reiterate, Lowe, Crouch & Wilde would then have no say in running the club, appointing managers or signing players, all they would be responsible for would be appointing this Chief Executive, setting him a budget and then monitoring his performance to ensure he was doing his job properly. errrr... not likely. Someone has to be Chairman, so who Nick? Even in the interim tell us who... because I say CROUCH is the only man there with the fans vote now. Fully agree about appointment of a CEO simultaneously though. OK for some supporters it wouldnt be the total removal of Lowe from Saints, but it would remove him from the day to day running of the Club and accusations of interference. Not good enough. Lowe is regarded as bad luck - let alone incompetent. He must NEVER be part of this club in any capacity ever again. You must demand that Nick. If supporters want to protest they need to do it with a united front and before and after games, not during, this was the tactics during the Branfoot protests of 93/94 and it worked well on several fronts, firstly it focused the fans on the true targets and secondly the energy unleashed in support of the team won us several points that really mattered come the end of the season long after Branfoot had gone, it meant that Alan Ball had a base to build on, surely we want that today, we may want the removal of Lowe and the rest and ultimately a takeover, but do we want to be so far behind if and when it happens that relegation is a certainty. Too late. Protests have started during games and will continue. If you wanted to make this point you should have made it 3-4 weeks ago. So as it WILL happen during games, accept it and at least try and make it constructive. The Saints Trust offfers fans a central point to rally round, the aim of the Trust is to encourage fans ownership in the Club, although you dont need to be a shareholder to join, I have said this many times, but if every season ticket holder and member had ticked the box on the season ticket renewal forms last season and joined the Trust then we would now own a nice chunk of the club, however if we scroll back three year to the trust formation and the departure of Lowe, if for the past three years 20,000 Saints fans, roughly half the data base had joined then, at a rough estimate using the share price over th past year we would now on behalf of the supporters own 10% of the Club, enough to tip the balance of power. But a large majority of fans view you as a club stooge. So you're barking up the wrong tree there. If you were to hand it over to someone else who was prepared to hold the club more accountable you may stand a chance. You are quite correct in your general point...but not whilst you're there Nick unless you are far more vocally anti Boardroom. The real message here is supporters can really change things, we have missed a big opportunity, but we have a chance to rectify it. You missed the opportunity Nick. You did. It was last summer that Lowe was allowed to return without protest....and now it is probably too late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintwarwick Posted 19 January, 2009 Share Posted 19 January, 2009 ooopppsss. Missed that. But I doubt very much that JP is on £36k per annum..... Then add on all the other Dutch coaches to that total. Pearson would of needed his own coaches as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 19 January, 2009 Share Posted 19 January, 2009 Pearson would of needed his own coaches as well. were they not already there...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 19 January, 2009 Share Posted 19 January, 2009 were they not already there...? Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 19 January, 2009 Share Posted 19 January, 2009 Yes. IF so.. when why do people say he would need to bring othe coaches..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 19 January, 2009 Share Posted 19 January, 2009 IF so.. when why do people say he would need to bring othe coaches..? cos they forgot we already had some? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintwarwick Posted 19 January, 2009 Share Posted 19 January, 2009 were they not already there...? Yes, they were called Dodd and Gorman and probably cost more than the dutch trio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now