Controversial post alert - ignore if you like Lowe

[alpine_saint]

Wow, the usual suspects have found a standard-bearer to rally behind......

[jonah]

You seem to take everything I say about Lowe so personally, Mark?

 

Duncan, you spend your whole time telling tales and stories to help bring down the club. The only aspect of this which I take "personally" is that you do all this to the known detriment of the club which I support. Why would you do that? Can't you put your personal grudge to one side for the betterment of the club? Even when you try to criticise the football side you cannot help but lay all the blame on Lowe (PLC) rather than Wilde (SFC) - that sums up the lack of objectivity. For every criticism you lay, there is usually a corresponding one with Wilde, Crouch, Corbett, McMenemy which you completely ignore and dismiss.

 

You have deliberately chosen not to address any of the points above which is very telling, the question is what did you think you would achieve by spreading this rumour on here and treating it as fact?

 

Just because my view does not tally with yours there is no need to be spiteful with your replies. You really are no better than some of the people on this forum you deem not worthy.

 

I don't see anything spiteful in my replies - I have pretty much typed an identical message to yours, only instead of questioning (aka "making up a story about") Lowe I have simply turned it around to ask the same questions about Lawrie/Pearson - what's wrong with that? I have questioned why Swansea fans don't appear to be gripped with demo fever after their disastrous draw on Saturday - what's wrong with that? And I've pointed out the obvious that Wotte does have a free hand in picking who he wants - what's wrong with that?

 

My conclusion is that all that is wrong is that it disagrees with your rumour (I say "your", can't be sure whose idea it was).

 

I have never met any of the major shareholders, but I am quite capable of drawing my own conclusions as to their relative strengths and weaknesses - I think the destructive elements in our fanbase are those people who cannot do that, and therefore cannot see the flaws in the people they back whilst only seeing the weaknesses in those they dislike (often for personal reasons). That's why Wilde rode into town unchallenged, and why you and others will continue your campaign of hatred until we go into administration. I hope you enjoy the 2nd division more than I will.

 

I wonder who is advising Pearson now ? Surely he can't be that good on his own ?

 

Sorry to tack you on the end slickmick but 3 posts are up ;-) Good question - maybe that's why NP with LM's guidance nearly took us down, but on his own he can reach the heights of the 1st division! Seriously though, I think most managers with Oakley (Premier League quality), Fryatt and Howard (top CCC quality) would have an easy time in that division. All hypothetical and IMO unhelpful speculation - I imagine NP fans would have liked to have someone like Tony Adams here too, and look how badly he's doing in a tougher league. Or maybe, just maybe, their fans don't enjoy the blame game more than football games?

[Frank's cousin]

No Alpine, we just read a post in response to Duncans and it made some valid points and good arguments thats all... simple really. I look forward to seeing Duncan respond - he is intelligent and witty enough to stand up forhimself and argue his case without you defending his honour...

 

Not everyone sees conspiracy, and agendas in everything someone posts...

[OldNick]

Wow, the usual suspects have found a standard-bearer to rally behind......

who's that then and what does the banner look like?

[OldNick]

No Alpine, we just read a post in response to Duncans and it made some valid points and good arguments thats all... simple really. I look forward to seeing Duncan respond - he is intelligent and witty enough to stand up forhimself and argue his case without you defending his honour...

 

Not everyone sees conspiracy, and agendas in everything someone posts...

Witty??

Intelligent yes but I dont think you can throw that at him.

[alpine_saint]

Duncan, you spend your whole time telling tales and stories to help bring down the club. The only aspect of this which I take "personally" is that you do all this to the known detriment of the club which I support. Why would you do that? Can't you put your personal grudge to one side for the betterment of the club? Even when you try to criticise the football side you cannot help but lay all the blame on Lowe (PLC) rather than Wilde (SFC) - that sums up the lack of objectivity. For every criticism you lay, there is usually a corresponding one with Wilde, Crouch, Corbett, McMenemy which you completely ignore and dismiss.

 

You have deliberately chosen not to address any of the points above which is very telling, the question is what did you think you would achieve by spreading this rumour on here and treating it as fact?

 

 

 

I don't see anything spiteful in my replies - I have pretty much typed an identical message to yours, only instead of questioning (aka "making up a story about") Lowe I have simply turned it around to ask the same questions about Lawrie/Pearson - what's wrong with that? I have questioned why Swansea fans don't appear to be gripped with demo fever after their disastrous draw on Saturday - what's wrong with that? And I've pointed out the obvious that Wotte does have a free hand in picking who he wants - what's wrong with that?

 

My conclusion is that all that is wrong is that it disagrees with your rumour (I say "your", can't be sure whose idea it was).

 

I have never met any of the major shareholders, but I am quite capable of drawing my own conclusions as to their relative strengths and weaknesses - I think the destructive elements in our fanbase are those people who cannot do that, and therefore cannot see the flaws in the people they back whilst only seeing the weaknesses in those they dislike (often for personal reasons). That's why Wilde rode into town unchallenged, and why you and others will continue your campaign of hatred until we go into administration. I hope you enjoy the 2nd division more than I will.

 

 

 

Sorry to tack you on the end slickmick but 3 posts are up ;-) Good question - maybe that's why NP with LM's guidance nearly took us down, but on his own he can reach the heights of the 1st division! Seriously though, I think most managers with Oakley (Premier League quality), Fryatt and Howard (top CCC quality) would have an easy time in that division. All hypothetical and IMO unhelpful speculation - I imagine NP fans would have liked to have someone like Tony Adams here too, and look how badly he's doing in a tougher league. Or maybe, just maybe, their fans don't enjoy the blame game more than football games?

 

So if Oakley, Howard and Fryatt are so blledin' marvellous, why havent they moved back to the CCC with other clubs (or, in the case of Oakley according to you, a PL club ).

 

Thanks for proving what we've known all along about you - that you know as much about football as your beloved Lowe.

[OldNick]

So if Oakley, Howard and Fryatt are so blledin' marvellous, why havent they moved back to the CCC with other clubs (or, in the case of Oakley according to you, a PL club ).

 

Thanks for proving what we've known all along about you - that you know as much about football as your beloved Lowe.

I suspect because their chairman doesnt need to sell, that they like many other players are far too good for L1 but not quite up to it in the CCC .Howard did do well for Derby for a short period.

[hypochondriac]

Oh FFS Alpine are you incapable of having a debate with someone without resorting to insults?

[Frank's cousin]

So if Oakley, Howard and Fryatt are so blledin' marvellous, why havent they moved back to the CCC with other clubs (or, in the case of Oakley according to you, a PL club ).

 

Thanks for proving what we've known all along about you - that you know as much about football as your beloved Lowe.

 

Because mad milan is paying them more than any CCC club would... its money Alpine - the thing that RAULEs the footballing world - trust me if we had some, Lowe would have been in Feckin Russia after Ashavin before the gooners if it was no object - his massive ego would demand it surely?

[slickmick]

 

Sorry to tack you on the end slickmick but 3 posts are up ;-) Good question - maybe that's why NP with LM's guidance nearly took us down, but on his own he can reach the heights of the 1st division! Seriously though, I think most managers with Oakley (Premier League quality), Fryatt and Howard (top CCC quality) would have an easy time in that division. All hypothetical and IMO unhelpful speculation - I imagine NP fans would have liked to have someone like Tony Adams here too, and look how badly he's doing in a tougher league. Or maybe, just maybe, their fans don't enjoy the blame game more than football games?

 

I have regular contact with a number of Pompey fans and told them that appointing within was the biggest mistake they could have made. Believe me, they are playing the blame game. Difference is we have made that same mistake far to often (Crouch included).

 

Lessons aren't being learnt and for that reason alone, someone should be blamed, or do you think differently ?

[alpine_saint]

This thread has become the proveribal week-old cow pat attracting the flies...

 

Never mind, you lot keep arguing semantics - bottom line is we are going down for the second time because of Lowe, and this time it is thanks to screwing up what could have been a promising set-up that was changed for reasons of ego alone, which also kept us up last season.

 

All the footstamping and bleating in the world aint going to change the facts - Lowe's investiment is worth less now than it would have been if he had left well alone..

[Frank's cousin]

I have regular contact with a number of Pompey fans and told them that appointing within was the biggest mistake they could have made. Believe me, they are playing the blame game. Difference is we have made that same mistake far to often (Crouch included).

 

Lessons aren't being learnt and for that reason alone, someone should be blamed, or do you think differently ?

 

Thats a valid point MIck, but it does lead to a new question, If thi is a mistake that lowe has reapeated many times , the cRouch did, and that we see at other clubs, why does it keep happening? What makes these folk repeat these errors... if we could find genuine reasons Why these deciions were made, understand why they were made, maybe we could really offer solutions to prevent them happening again who knows, but I suspect it IT all about money at th end of the day - even though UP and Duncs muight disagre, until we get fly on gthe wall access to those conversations we have to assume everything else we hear has been released for a purpose.... 99% of all ddecisions in football these days are made due to money and we often dont acknowledge its significance.

[Weston Saint]

I think Duncan makes some valid points as does Mark's reply. It is all about opinion mixed in with a few facts.

 

There is no doubt in my mind Lowe influences team selection, may be not directly but indirectly due to financial considerations.

 

I can see the wish for some to demonstrate away from the 90 minute game time and it does have an effect but be careful what you wish for in ridding the club of Lowe and make sure you have a long term suitable replacement. Further short term changes in the board room will only increase the damage in my opinion.

 

Mark makes a very good point about Swansea playing against 10 men at a club with the worst home record in the division yet managing to get pegged back to 2-2. Last nights result is very disappointing against 10 men but alone should not be taken out of context.

 

Lowe out, most certainly when there is a viable long term replacement. Crouch has his good points but not enough for me to support his return for the long term future of SFC

 

To dismiss either Duncan's or Mark's posts shows a complete lack of intelligence and a high degree of blind prejudice, again in my opinion.

[Frank's cousin]

This thread has become the proveribal week-old cow pat attracting the flies...

 

Never mind, you lot keep arguing semantics - bottom line is we are going down for the second time because of Lowe, and this time it is thanks to screwing up what could have been a promising set-up that was changed for reasons of ego alone, which also kept us up last season.

 

All the footstamping and bleating in the world aint going to change the facts - Lowe's investiment is worth less now than it would have been if he had left well alone..

 

Oh Dear Alpine... bottom line is we may go down because we are crap at the moment, this is in part due to having a coach who lacked experience in this division despite showing early promise, and the Chairman failing to act quickly - and then compounding the problem by appointing from within again, but the biggest factor has to be the lack of cash we have meaning we are playing with a bunch of inexperienced kids.

 

Oh and not sure many of us really care about the value of Lowe's investment... ;-)

[slickmick]

Sorry to tack you on the end slickmick but 3 posts are up ;-) Good question - maybe that's why NP with LM's guidance nearly took us down, but on his own he can reach the heights of the 1st division! Seriously though, I think most managers with Oakley (Premier League quality), Fryatt and Howard (top CCC quality) would have an easy time in that division. All hypothetical and IMO unhelpful speculation - I imagine NP fans would have liked to have someone like Tony Adams here too, and look how badly he's doing in a tougher league. Or maybe, just maybe, their fans don't enjoy the blame game more than football games?

 

Pearson or Adams ? Interesting comparison. Can you see a difference ?One is getting the most out of his OAP players and the other is struggling, even when he had four England Internationals until recently. Maybe Pearson should be the next Pompey manager.

[OldNick]

This thread has become the proveribal week-old cow pat attracting the flies...

 

Never mind, you lot keep arguing semantics - bottom line is we are going down for the second time because of Lowe, and this time it is thanks to screwing up what could have been a promising set-up that was changed for reasons of ego alone, which also kept us up last season.

 

All the footstamping and bleating in the world aint going to change the facts - Lowe's investiment is worth less now than it would have been if he had left well alone..

you are being hard on yourself Alpine. Comparing yourself to some week-old cow pat, you are fresher than that

[Frank's cousin]

Pearson or Adams ? Interesting comparison. Can you see a difference ?One is getting the most out of his OAP players and the other is struggling, even when he had four England Internationals until recently. Maybe Pearson should be the next Pompey manager.

 

Thing is Mick, if you look at it through the wide lens of objectivity - as a neutral and analyse the pioints per game and the fact we just stayed up with the old squad, on paper its not a great result... still I believe Pearson should have been given a go, but our current opinion of him IS influenced by the success he is having at leicester - something that we only have the real luxuray of assessing now, 8 months later - hindsight is such a wonderful thing afterall.

 

Anyone who says they 'knew' Pearson would turn out good when the decsion was made is talking out their proverbial. I would go on to say that Lowe is probably well ****ed off that he did not have the benefit of hindsight.... the truth is though, had Pearson been kept on, and we were still where we are due the wholesale changes re the kids, then would fans have balmed Crouch initial appointment, or Lowe for keeping him on (the cheap option, could have told you that at the start of the season blah blah blah....) I thin we know the answer to that one..

[Frank's cousin]

you are being hard on yourself Alpine. Comparing yourself to some week-old cow pat, you are fresher than that

 

Weekold and you often get away with it - dried out and all that - step in a fresh one and ...

[70's Mike]

I think Duncan makes some valid points as does Mark's reply. It is all about opinion mixed in with a few facts.

 

There is no doubt in my mind Lowe influences team selection, may be not directly but indirectly due to financial considerations.

 

I can see the wish for some to demonstrate away from the 90 minute game time and it does have an effect but be careful what you wish for in ridding the club of Lowe and make sure you have a long term suitable replacement. Further short term changes in the board room will only increase the damage in my opinion.

 

Mark makes a very good point about Swansea playing against 10 men at a club with the worst home record in the division yet managing to get pegged back to 2-2. Last nights result is very disappointing against 10 men but alone should not be taken out of context.

 

Lowe out, most certainly when there is a viable long term replacement. Crouch has his good points but not enough for me to support his return for the long term future of SFC

 

To dismiss either Duncan's or Mark's posts shows a complete lack of intelligence and a high degree of blind prejudice, again in my opinion.

 

 

Some very true points but i would take issue that anyone is taking last nights result out of context , that is the problem it was within context of every home game this season

[CB Fry]

This thread has become the proveribal week-old cow pat attracting the flies...

 

Never mind, you lot keep arguing semantics - bottom line is we are going down for the second time because of Lowe, and this time it is thanks to screwing up what could have been a promising set-up that was changed for reasons of ego alone, which also kept us up last season.

 

All the footstamping and bleating in the world aint going to change the facts - Lowe's investiment is worth less now than it would have been if he had left well alone..

 

 

This is 100% correct.

 

 

The original post on this thread is ******** and yet more evidence of the club "historian" turning into a club "speculator", club "assumer" and heaven forbid club "stooge" for good old Leon.

 

Lowe will be responsible for our relegation and then will be gone, I'm sure. These kind of threads speed up Lowe's departure not a jot more and they certainly don't help us get any more points on the table.

 

But if Leon and his pet historian are happy with their efforts, fair play to you both.

[Give it to Ron]

Oh Dear Alpine... bottom line is we may go down because we are crap at the moment, this is in part due to having a coach who lacked experience in this division despite showing early promise, and the Chairman failing to act quickly - and then compounding the problem by appointing from within again, but the biggest factor has to be the lack of cash we have meaning we are playing with a bunch of inexperienced kids.

 

Oh and not sure many of us really care about the value of Lowe's investment... ;-)

 

Can I also add to that list the fact we wasted what little money we did have to keep the experienced players on 6 loanees who would struggle to get in a League 1 side Smith as an example!

Whoever sits on the talent spotting panel at SMS needs to go to Specsavers sharpish!

I don't buy all the small wages part because when you factor in loan and agent fees as well its a fair wedge x6

[Snowballs2]

Am I the only one on here who cannot understand how some on here stil try and defend the record of Lowe and Wilde. Look at any new topic and you will see the usual suspects, I find it so amusing since they cannot come up with anything that he has been successful with..even the stadium (a huge millstone round our neck) was done more by the Council than Lowe after he screwed up the Eastleigh application. Multiple Failed managerial appointments, and we are told that Pearson was probably a failure. You have to laugh atthose who are either brain dead or desperate to curry favour or just want to be different in a controversial way.

Those that believe Lowe has failed on both occasions have identified where and the reasons he does not deserve any more support. I have yet to see a logical and lucid explanation from tyhe Lowe luvvies as to what he has achieved in the last 6 years.

[CB Fry]

Am I the only one on here who cannot understand how some on here stil try and defend the record of Lowe and Wilde. Look at any new topic and you will see the usual suspects, I find it so amusing since they cannot come up with anything that he has been successful with..even the stadium (a huge millstone round our neck) was done more by the Council than Lowe after he screwed up the Eastleigh application. Multiple Failed managerial appointments, and we are told that Pearson was probably a failure. You have to laugh atthose who are either brain dead or desperate to curry favour or just want to be different in a controversial way.

Those that believe Lowe has failed on both occasions have identified where and the reasons he does not deserve any more support. I have yet to see a logical and lucid explanation from tyhe Lowe luvvies as to what he has achieved in the last 6 years.

 

 

You do realise apart from two wind up merchants on here no-one supports Lowe anymore.

 

So you can stop frothing at the mouth about stuff that happened ten years ago because christ its been done to death.

[trousers]

I expect Swansea supporters are busy organising demonstrations and demanding changes at board level following them "failing to muster 3 points against 10 men when already in front, against the worst home team in the league". Or maybe, just maybe, they don't have a fan-base full of drama-queens and revolutionaries?

 

Or maybe their 11 match unbeaten run (or however long it is) sort of compensates for an off day every now and then? (now, where did I put that picture of apples and oranges...)

 

Are you suggesting that people on here would moan as much if we slipped up once every 11 games rather than once every game (on average)?

 

Actually, scratch that question....!

[St_Tel49]

Am I the only one on here who cannot understand how some on here stil try and defend the record of Lowe and Wilde. Look at any new topic and you will see the usual suspects, I find it so amusing since they cannot come up with anything that he has been successful with..even the stadium (a huge millstone round our neck) was done more by the Council than Lowe after he screwed up the Eastleigh application. Multiple Failed managerial appointments, and we are told that Pearson was probably a failure. You have to laugh atthose who are either brain dead or desperate to curry favour or just want to be different in a controversial way.

Those that believe Lowe has failed on both occasions have identified where and the reasons he does not deserve any more support. I have yet to see a logical and lucid explanation from tyhe Lowe luvvies as to what he has achieved in the last 6 years.

 

I have not seen that many posts defending L and W. The point that most responses have been trying to get across is that while it is perfectly in order to beat Lowe about the head for things he has been proven to have done, your argument cannot be treated seriously if it is based only on speculation. Sadly, far too much stuff is based on speculation and straight forward prejudice. When posters try to point this out they suddenly become Lowe Luvvies.

[Charlie Wayman]

He was there last night

[Snowballs2]

He was there last night

 

Who gives a sh1t ?

[RoswellSaint]

I'd forgotten how utterly arrogant and dislikeable you really are.

 

Didn't come across as arrogant or dislikeable, more a reasonable, alternative view.

 

I would agree there are some drama queens on here, witness all the threads stating it is all over, we are down. I agree it doesn't look good but we have 15 games to go. Still time to scrape enough points to finish fourth from bottom.

[RoswellSaint]

You seem to take everything I say about Lowe so personally, Mark?

Just because my view does not tally with yours there is no need to be spiteful with your replies. You really are no better than some of the people on this forum you deem not worthy.

 

Didn't seem spiteful either.

[alpine_saint]

you are being hard on yourself Alpine. Comparing yourself to some week-old cow pat, you are fresher than that

 

That joke is becoming very boring......

[alpine_saint]

You do realise apart from two wind up merchants on here no-one supports Lowe anymore.

 

 

That is bolllocks, CB.

[Frank's cousin]

That is bolllocks, CB.

 

NO its probably quite accurate... you seem to equate NOT supporting Crouch with supporting Lowe, You seem to equate, not wanting doom and gloom and hoping against hope that Wotte pulls it off as.... wait for it ...supporting Lowe.... you seem to equate, not considering Lowe a budgie who has never done anything but bad...with supporting Lowe.... would you like me to go on?

[Fitzhugh Fella]

Duncan, you spend your whole time telling tales and stories to help bring down the club. The only aspect of this which I take "personally" is that you do all this to the known detriment of the club which I support. Why would you do that? Can't you put your personal grudge to one side for the betterment of the club? Even when you try to criticise the football side you cannot help but lay all the blame on Lowe (PLC) rather than Wilde (SFC) - that sums up the lack of objectivity. For every criticism you lay, there is usually a corresponding one with Wilde, Crouch, Corbett, McMenemy which you completely ignore and dismiss.

 

You have deliberately chosen not to address any of the points above which is very telling, the question is what did you think you would achieve by spreading this rumour on here and treating it as fact?

 

 

 

I don't see anything spiteful in my replies - I have pretty much typed an identical message to yours, only instead of questioning (aka "making up a story about") Lowe I have simply turned it around to ask the same questions about Lawrie/Pearson - what's wrong with that? I have questioned why Swansea fans don't appear to be gripped with demo fever after their disastrous draw on Saturday - what's wrong with that? And I've pointed out the obvious that Wotte does have a free hand in picking who he wants - what's wrong with that?

 

My conclusion is that all that is wrong is that it disagrees with your rumour (I say "your", can't be sure whose idea it was).

 

I have never met any of the major shareholders, but I am quite capable of drawing my own conclusions as to their relative strengths and weaknesses - I think the destructive elements in our fanbase are those people who cannot do that, and therefore cannot see the flaws in the people they back whilst only seeing the weaknesses in those they dislike (often for personal reasons). That's why Wilde rode into town unchallenged, and why you and others will continue your campaign of hatred until we go into administration. I hope you enjoy the 2nd division more than I will.

 

 

 

Sorry to tack you on the end slickmick but 3 posts are up ;-) Good question - maybe that's why NP with LM's guidance nearly took us down, but on his own he can reach the heights of the 1st division! Seriously though, I think most managers with Oakley (Premier League quality), Fryatt and Howard (top CCC quality) would have an easy time in that division. All hypothetical and IMO unhelpful speculation - I imagine NP fans would have liked to have someone like Tony Adams here too, and look how badly he's doing in a tougher league. Or maybe, just maybe, their fans don't enjoy the blame game more than football games?

 

 

Mark - you said you did not say anything spiteful in your post but I found this remark to be a little below the belt - you said in reply to my post -

 

"I agree that this post is about ego, politics and self-justification, but I'm not sure it's about Lowe"!

 

OK nothing serious but in my opinion it marks you out as a tad pompous and arrogant. Traits that you have never tried to suppress in the way you answer anyone who dares to criticise your ruddy cheeked hero.

 

IMO I would rather have LM "advising" a manager of Southampton FC on football matters than a farmer from the Cotswolds who has admitted to knowing nothing about football until he swindled a lot of people (allegedly) and managed to use an old people's retirement home to takeover a football club while simultaneously lining his pockets (allegedly).

 

But there again Mark you never have been able to explain that little story have you.

[Wade Garrett]

NO its probably quite accurate... you seem to equate NOT supporting Crouch with supporting Lowe' date=' You seem to equate, not wanting doom and gloom and hoping against hope that Wotte pulls it off as.... wait for it ...supporting Lowe.... you seem to equate, not considering Lowe a budgie who has never done anything but bad...with supporting Lowe.... would you like me to go on?[/quote']

 

You seem to think that anyone who hasn't got splinters up their backsides as extremists with no 'rational, reasonable' point of view.

[um pahars]

I expect Swansea supporters are busy organising demonstrations and demanding changes at board level following them "failing to muster 3 points against 10 men when already in front, against the worst home team in the league". Or maybe, just maybe, they don't have a fan-base full of drama-queens and revolutionaries?

 

That will be the same bunch of Swansea fans who must have been drama queens and revolutionaries back in 2002 when they took to the streets (and the pitch) to protest against Tony Petty.

 

You're in la la land if you think this only happens down here.

 

I really do question the lack of objectivity and motivation for some of the posts in the last couple of months... even if someone seriously thought a change at boardroom level would affect anything (and there are 6 million reasons why not for starters), how the hell can any of this be in the club's interest *now*? It's not. The transfer window has closed, we are where we are now. We have 15 games left to save ourselves - it's a shame we appear to be running out of supporters who want to cheer the team on, but prefer to play political football.

 

A few points on this one:

 

1. Lowe and Wilde must have thought there was some mileage in changing the manager, even with so few games coming up, so why not the management team up in the offices? (BTW I did chuckle at your attempt to blame Crouch for Poortvliet walking/being sacked, which although obviously not the case, then had it been, I think Crouch should be commended for ridding us of such a failure)

 

2. I don't remember you being too critical of Lowe and Wilde's timing last season when their "takeover" overshadowed our relegation battle, particularly when it was common knowledge that Lowe had a replacement for Pearson already lined up.

 

3. Whilst Pearson was no uber manager, he did manage to arrest our decline in only 13 games, so I see no reason why change, even this late in the day is not an option (with regards both the manager and the CEO).

 

4. Were those 6 million reasons why we shouldn't change relevant last summer?

 

5. The transfer window may be shut, but the loan window is still there. A change in manager and CEO could bring about a new strategy which could utilise this window. After all, Pearson and Hoos used it judiciously last season.

 

6. And when you try to pin the blame for Poortvliet being sacked/walking on Crouch just because he was at SMS on the Friday it happened, then I think it is also fair to question your lack of objectivity and motivation.

 

I also note the lack of objectivity last summer when you were never repeated some of the scare stories you were running two summers previously e.g. you never trotted out lines such as "change of control might mean the loan is called in", a scare tactic you were happy to band about previously.

 

You're of course entitled to your opinion, but please don't pretend that you're a voice of balance, impartiality and reasonableness.

 

you and others will continue your campaign of hatred until we go into administration. I hope you enjoy the 2nd division more than I will.

 

It's not a campaign of hatred, merely a campaign to try and rid us of some very poor guardians and decision makers at our Club.

 

The main reason we will go into administration is not due to the fans, but instead due to the actions of a number of those who have been in charge of this Club in recent years. You would be better off looking at the decisions taking by people that have resulted in millions lost, failing atttendances and relegation, with another relegation on the horizon which will will do more to bring on administration, as opposed to blaming a fan protest.

 

Taking this season, the appointment of Jan Poortvliet and how it has produced falling revenue and failing performances is the main reason why we are being drawn towards relegation and probable administration. Rather than bemoan Poortvliet's departure (which is remarkable in itself), you would be better off trying to understand why such a crass decision was taken in the first place.

 

As for the last line, well I can only hope you've enjoyed this division more than I have!

 

Seriously though, I think most managers with Oakley (Premier League quality), Fryatt and Howard (top CCC quality) would have an easy time in that division.

 

Three players!!!! Players who were obviously not up to much if they couldn't single handedly save them from the drop, but all of a sudden now must be quality if they single handedly take Leicester to the top of their division.

 

Of course they're handy players, but I think many are playing down Pearson's achievement at Leicester, not least because there is no guarantee that relegated clubs will bounce straight back up (as we found out to our cost).

 

But additionally, if you look at his team, then the vast majority are youngsters and/or loanees (who are also young). He has rebuilt that Leicester team and is doing his part in getting them promoted.

 

He was no uber manager, and there would be no guarantees had he stayed here, but I also very much doubt he would have been as such a disaster as Poortvliet was!

Edited 5 February, 2009 by um pahars

[SaintRobbie]

Mark - you said you did not say anything spiteful in your post but I found this remark to be a little below the belt - you said in reply to my post -

 

"I agree that this post is about ego, politics and self-justification, but I'm not sure it's about Lowe"!

 

OK nothing serious but in my opinion it marks you out as a tad pompous and arrogant. Traits that you have never tried to suppress in the way you answer anyone who dares to criticise your ruddy cheeked hero.

 

IMO I would rather have LM "advising" a manager of Southampton FC on football matters than a farmer from the Cotswolds who has admitted to knowing nothing about football until he swindled a lot of people (allegedly) and managed to use an old people's retirement home to takeover a football club while simultaneously lining his pockets (allegedly).

 

But there again Mark you never have been able to explain that little story have you.

 

 

One day Duncan you'll write another book about this.

[Redondo Saint]

I think Duncan makes some valid points as does Mark's reply. It is all about opinion mixed in with a few facts.

 

There is no doubt in my mind Lowe influences team selection, may be not directly but indirectly due to financial considerations.

 

I can see the wish for some to demonstrate away from the 90 minute game time and it does have an effect but be careful what you wish for in ridding the club of Lowe and make sure you have a long term suitable replacement. Further short term changes in the board room will only increase the damage in my opinion.

 

Mark makes a very good point about Swansea playing against 10 men at a club with the worst home record in the division yet managing to get pegged back to 2-2. Last nights result is very disappointing against 10 men but alone should not be taken out of context.

 

Lowe out, most certainly when there is a viable long term replacement. Crouch has his good points but not enough for me to support his return for the long term future of SFC

 

To dismiss either Duncan's or Mark's posts shows a complete lack of intelligence and a high degree of blind prejudice, again in my opinion.

 

 

I totally agree with you.

 

It's clear RL can't be a long term Chairman at SFC (I doubt he wants to be!) but without long term new ownership and long term financing forcing him out would be another big mistake for this club.

I will be glad to see him go, but let's have a viable plan first.

Edited 4 February, 2009 by Redondo Saint

[derry]

Unfortunately the club is divided into camps, boycotters, vociferous anti and pro Lowe, and most importantly the silent majority that are getting more fed up by the day.

 

Until Rupert Lowe leaves, this club has no future, he is the one single impediment to moving forward. Division is his trademark. His arrogant micro management is damaging this club and bleeding it to death.

[DT]

I suspect there's start money in the contract of the more expensive players. If you don't play them for 90 minutes you save money, and all they get is an absolute basic.

 

This can be the only reason. I also suspect some contractual nonsense about DMcG because he is utter cack and keeps getting selected.

[alpine_saint]

NO its probably quite accurate... you seem to equate NOT supporting Crouch with supporting Lowe' date=' You seem to equate, not wanting doom and gloom and hoping against hope that Wotte pulls it off as.... wait for it ...supporting Lowe.... you seem to equate, not considering Lowe a budgie who has never done anything but bad...with supporting Lowe.... would you like me to go on?[/quote']

 

Yes, because I dont buy it.

 

Even your messiah quantifies everyone as being for or against him.

 

what's that saying about only a few good men have to do nothing to allow evil to succeed ?

[CB Fry]

Yes, because I dont buy it.

 

Even your messiah quantifies everyone as being for or against him.

 

what's that saying about only a few good men have to do nothing to allow evil to succeed ?

 

 

Do remind us what you're "doing" again?

 

You've said many times you have no desire to do anything, which is fair enough, but that means you can't spout rubbish like that last line.

 

 

You're proving my point. The fact is no-one except for a couple of people on this forum (on a wind up IMO) want Lowe to remain.

 

But that's too difficult for you and others to grasp so you have to rail against anyone who doesn't take up the extreme view of wanting him dead and his guts dragged up Western Esplanade, and make out there's a huge swell of pro Lowe people you have to go into battle against.

 

And bang on, and on, and on about the same old stuff. We got relegated did we? £90,000 in the first season down, eh? Dutch morons in charge? No. shi t.

 

The people you think you are locked in a 100 years war with? They don't exist. And don't make out you are at war "against Lowe" because you have admitted in the past to doing nothing (again, fair enough, I'm with you).

[jonah]

IMO I would rather have LM "advising" a manager of Southampton FC on football matters than a farmer from the Cotswolds who has admitted to knowing nothing about football until he swindled a lot of people (allegedly) and managed to use an old people's retirement home to takeover a football club while simultaneously lining his pockets (allegedly).

 

But there again Mark you never have been able to explain that little story have you.

 

Look at that, I've now had to spend £5 just to reply to your ridiculous nonsense Duncan.

 

I have explained this to you many times but you clearly love to keep your head buried in the sand. I will point out a few things again in the hope that one day you shift that almighty chip and actually take on board some facts.

 

Firstly, as you should know, writing "allegedly" doesn't protect you from a writ. As for lining his pockets and swindling people, let's examine the facts - Secure Retirement was a listed company. Lowe (and Cowen) bought shares in the company - that is their perogative isn't it? They saw value in the company - cash, a full listing, property and businesses. So they spent their own cash to buy up control of that company. That isn't swindling anyone, that's buying shares in a floated, listed company.

 

The reverse flotation - ignoring the old debates about whether it was right or wrong - involved merging Secure with the unlisted company SFC to create a new SLH worth (very simplistically) the sum of its parts. Lowe's holding from Secure translated into an equivalent cash value in the new company - for example, if he owned 15% of Secure (15% of say £5m marketcap = £750k), he then owned 7.5% of SLH (7.5% of £10m marketcap = £750k) - those figures are approximates to make the point that there was no magical money made by Lowe there... hence he did not "line his pockets" then either, and if he did fair play to him for spotting a chance in the market place, that's the whole ethos of the stock markets isn't it? (The subsequent rise in price was mainly a result of a bubble in football stocks.)

 

So having established Lowe didn't swindle people or line his pockets, let see who did:

 

The reverse takeover meant placing a market value on SFC shares which were previously only worth a nominal £1 each. Now this is a contentious issue regarding the rights and wrongs of who should and shouldn't keep shares (prior to the reverse takoever) - ignoring the moral issue, the facts of the matter are that certain shares were bought at the nominal £1 value by existing SFC Directors. Of those Directors, the one who took *most* was Lawrie. That's not "allegedly", that's fact. So when you talk about "swindling people" by buying those shares for the nominal £1 prior to the takeover, those involved were Askham, Hunt, Gordon, Wiseman, Richards and McMenemy. Four of whom you actively backed and continue to back without question simply because they oppose Lowe. And the most guilty party, taking the largest slice of those "cheap shares", was Lawrie. Remember, fact, not conjecture or rumour.

 

Now let's move onto who has lined their own pockets. Of those people who bought the shares "cheaply", only 1 of them sold up after we floated. Step forward one Lawrie McMenemy (again) who sold the majority of his shares. Fact, not conjecture, rumour or planted mischief-making from Crouch. Fact.

 

Fast-forward 10 years to Wilde's incompetent "takeover" and who sold their shares? Hunt and Wiseman. Did they put the cash back into the club? No... so they are the ones, like Lawrie, who would be considered to have "lined their pockets" I presume?

 

Looking a bit deeper at who has actually put cash into the club (ignoring the cash that Secure brought in on the deal), we have the Open Offer, or Rights Issue, to raise cash for the stadium. Who put in cash then? Lawrie, Wiseman, Hunt, Gordon, Crouch, Wilde or Trant? Of course not, not a penny. Those who underwrote the issue and ended up buying half the new shares were Lowe, Marland, Thompson and Withers. Obviously Lawrie had the right to buy up the new shares for his holding so he bought those... oh no, wait, he didn't even buy his own shares in the Open Offer, not a penny.

 

So it's pretty clear, when looking at facts rather than myth, that those who swindled people were Lawrie and Co, and those who lined their pockets were Lawrie and Co. DUncan, please can you bookmark this post so you don't make the same claim every year for the next 20 years?

 

Traits that you have never tried to suppress in the way you answer anyone who dares to criticise your ruddy cheeked hero.

 

My heroes are Jimmy Page and John Bonham. I think you are mistaking common sense and fact for some sort of personal allegiance to someone I've never met. One of us is barking mad and it isn't me.

 

IMO I would rather have LM "advising" a manager of Southampton FC on football matters than a farmer from the Cotswolds who has admitted to knowing nothing about football

 

Ah yes, the ex-guardsman who played for Gateshead in the 50s. That's half a century ago. Again you are lacking objectivity and common sense, by all means pillory chairmen like Lowe, Dein, Glazier, Abramovich, Mandaric, Jordan, Hemmings, Lord Ashcroft and Delia Smith for running multi-million pound companies whilst not being footballers, but let's keep some perspective about the benefits of keeping a "swindling", "pocket-lining" McMenemy in the picture too.

 

Sh!t, £5 for typing up a load of facts, what a rip off! :-(

[Frank's cousin]

You seem to think that anyone who hasn't got splinters up their backsides as extremists with no 'rational, reasonable' point of view.

 

I dont Wade seriously, I know there are pleanty of rational intelligent and fair minded posters on here who have analysed, thought long and hard about things and are stil very much in the Lowe out now whatever camp... and for the most part they put across their opinions very strongly but with respect and intel. The dificulty for me is, not the fact that they want Lowe gone... there are after all only a few that would argue against the need for a new direction.... but that the messages become mixed up, the unquestioning support for Crouch perhaps or the schardenfreude with which each new blunder is sometimes met.

 

Lowe is not evil, but has made mistakes that have contributed to where we are, as have others in the grand scheme of things, and yes I would welcome a new direction, but at this present moment in time the suggested alternative is simpy lacking in credibility and I cant support something based, as I see it 'the populist appraoch' with lacks substance.

 

Yes, I have also defended some of the decions because I do see logic in them, even though they have failed through a number of reasons, but when we look back at the history of where mistakes have been made I do think we underestimate the impact of simple moey in making them...

[Tamesaint]

A couple of questions Jonah??

 

1. How much cash diid Secure Retirement bring to Saints??? This is a genuine question. I would like to know the answer.

 

2. How does the cash that Lowe put into the Rights Issue compare with the money that he has received in dividends, payoffs, salary etc ? I think I know the answer to this one.

 

What many people object to is Lowe and his cabal taking so much from the club. In comparison to nearly every Premier League club and the majority of clubs in the Championship, we have a chairman who does not appear to invest in his club. We have a Chairman who sees the club as a money making opportunity for himself. The majority of chairmen do not. No wondere the football club is failing when we are having to compete on such an unlevel playing field.

 

.. and I am not referring to Yeovil's old ground :-) :-)

[saint1977]

I think a potted summary of both Duncan's and Mark's posts is that as fans we've got 2 sets of incompetents as major shareholder groups with one being a bit more popular with the fans. Wilde and Askham are the real culprits here, Lowe and Crouch are almost fringe players in comparison. Wiseman's greed and utter selfishness should not be forgotten - he may have switched sides but he was every bit as involved in using the club as a cash-cow as slimy Guy Askham and let's remember, no Askham, no Secure Retirement on the table. Whilst I doubt SR was the best option for the club, it did wipe out a £3m overdraft run up by Askham's staggering incompetence. LM was a fantastic manager, our greatest ever but whilst Mark is off-beam on his credentials he is very right on the fact LM did also gain from the 1996 goings on and LM was too closely linked to Guy Askham for far too long for my liking.

 

To be honest, there is so much focus on the two loudest voices - Lowe and Crouch - that the real players in this sorry saga are getting away with running this club into the ground. Yet, by taking "sides" and trying to appeal to us, they are still pulling the strings without accountability to us and the smaller shareholders.

[jonah]

1. How much cash diid Secure Retirement bring to Saints??? This is a genuine question. I would like to know the answer.

 

£3m cash, £1.1m properties, £1.3m fixed assets, £0.8m healthcare business = £6.2m. The cost to obtain a full stock market listing, which Secure also brought with them, would have been betweem £800k and £1.5m depending on whether we shopped at Aldi or Waitrose :-)

 

It also saved about 1.5 years time-wise by going for a reverse-takeover as opposed to a full flotation.

 

2. How does the cash that Lowe put into the Rights Issue compare with the money that he has received in dividends, payoffs, salary etc ? I think I know the answer to this one.

 

What many people object to is Lowe and his cabal taking so much from the club.

 

Firstly, I think you are wrong to refer to him as the chairman. His salary is as CEO. If Lowe wasn't paid his £200k pa in the Premiership we'd have paid at least that to others - just look at Wilde who had to bring in Hone, Hoos, Dulieu and Oldknow to do in the CCC what Lowe and Cowen did between them in the Prem! So I think, again, you are not being objective in your criticisms... why did everyone back Wilde's ridiculous plan and Director salaries?

 

As for Lowe's "cabal" and the dividends, well I don't have an issue with when they were paid in the Prem - firstly, shareholders like Corbett, Lawrie, Wiseman, Hunt and Gordon were all free to decline the dividend (as were fans who held shares), but they didn't did they? I also still maintain divvies were necessary to maintain City interest which was necessary to hold the company's credit rating which affected the loan notes for the stadium. Lowe, Marland and Withers all bought the shares with their own cash - if you think it was a grand scheme to reward themselves with 1p dividends for tying up half a million cash then well, you're probably as financially-qualified as Alastair Darling ;-)

 

In comparison to nearly every Premier League club and the majority of clubs in the Championship, we have a chairman who does not appear to invest in his club.

 

Sorry but again that's nonsense. Outside of the Premiership which I hope we can all agree has gone mad, you only have to look at clubs like Preston - owned by Trevor Hemmings (billionaire). Did he pump his fortune into the club? Or Watford and Lord Ashcroft (another billionaire) - nope, no big investment there either. Or Madjeski - insisted that Reading were run self-sufficiently despite his personal fortune. But again, it's confusing Lowe's role as paid CEO with that of trophy chairman - our trophy chairman was, errrr, Wilde. Now who brought him into power?

[slickmick]

Jonah,

 

What is your view on Lowes decision to appoint JP as manager/coach ?

Do you think promoting Wotte to head coach is the right move after our previous failures to succeed after making an appointment within ?

[benjii]

That will be the same bunch of Swansea fans who must have been drama queens and revolutionaries back in 2002 when they took to the streets (and the pitch) to protest against Tony Petty.

 

You're in la la land if you think this only happens down here.

 

 

 

A few points on this one:

 

1. Lowe and Wilde must have thought there was some mileage in changing the manager, even with so few games coming up, so why not the management team up in the offices? (BTW I did chuckle at your attempt to blame Crouch for Poortvliet walking/being sacked, which although obviously not the case, then had it been, I think Crouch should be commended for ridding us of such a failure)

 

2. I don't remember you being too critical of Lowe and Wilde's timing last season when their "takeover" overshadowed our relegation battle, particularly when it was common knowledge that Lowe had a replacement for Pearson already lined up.

 

3. Whilst Pearson was no uber manager, he did manage to arrest our decline in only 13 games, so I see no reason why change, even this late in the day is not an option (with regards both the manager and the CEO).

 

4. Were those 6 million reasons why we shouldn't change relevant last summer?

 

5. The transfer window may be shut, but the loan window is still there. A change in manager and CEO could bring about a new strategy which could utilise this window. After all, Pearson and Hoos used it judiciously last season.

 

6. And when you try to pin the blame for Poortvliet being sacked/walking on Crouch just because he was at SMS on the Friday it happened, then I think it is also fair to question your lack of objectivity and motivation.

 

I also note the lack of objectivity last summer when you were never repeated some of the scare stories you were running two summers previously e.g. you never trotted out lines such as "change of control might mean the loan is called in", a scare tactic you were happy to band about previously.

 

You're of course entitled to your opinion, but please don't pretend that you're a voice of balance, impartiality and reasonableness.

 

 

 

It's not a campaign of hatred, merely a campaign to try and rid us of some very poor guardians and decision makers at our Club.

 

The main reason we will go into administration is not due to the fans, but instead due to the actions of a number of those who have been in charge of this Club in recent years. You would be better off looking at the decisions taking by people that have resulted in millions lost, failing atttendances and relegation, with another relegation on the horizon which will will do more to bring on administration, as opposed to blaming a fan protest.

 

Taking this season, the appointment of Jan Poortvliet and how it has produced falling revenue and failing performances is the main reason why we are being drawn towards relegation and probable administration. Rather than bemoan Poortvliet's departure (which is remarkable in itself), you would be better off trying to understand why such a crass decision was taken in the first place.

 

As for the last line, well I can only hope you've enjoyed this division more than I have!

 

 

 

Three players!!!! Players who were obviously not up to much if they couldn't single handedly save them from the drop, but all of a sudden now must be quality if they single handedly take Leicester to the top of their division.

 

Of course they're handy players, but I think many are playing down Pearson's achievement at Leicester, not least because there is no guarantee that relegated clubs will bounce straight back up (as we found out to our cost).

 

But additionally, if you look at his team, then the vast majority are youngsters and/or loanees (who are also young). He has rebuilt that Leicester team and is doing his part in getting them promoted.

 

He was no uber manager, and there would be no guarantees had he stayed here, but I also very much doubt he would have been as such a disaster as Poortvliet was!

 

Jonah, just in case this post slipped under your radar; I'd be interested (well, mildly) to know your response to these points.

[Fitzhugh Fella]

Look at that, I've now had to spend £5 just to reply to your ridiculous nonsense Duncan.

 

I have explained this to you many times but you clearly love to keep your head buried in the sand. I will point out a few things again in the hope that one day you shift that almighty chip and actually take on board some facts.

 

Firstly, as you should know, writing "allegedly" doesn't protect you from a writ. As for lining his pockets and swindling people, let's examine the facts - Secure Retirement was a listed company. Lowe (and Cowen) bought shares in the company - that is their perogative isn't it? They saw value in the company - cash, a full listing, property and businesses. So they spent their own cash to buy up control of that company. That isn't swindling anyone, that's buying shares in a floated, listed company.

 

The reverse flotation - ignoring the old debates about whether it was right or wrong - involved merging Secure with the unlisted company SFC to create a new SLH worth (very simplistically) the sum of its parts. Lowe's holding from Secure translated into an equivalent cash value in the new company - for example, if he owned 15% of Secure (15% of say £5m marketcap = £750k), he then owned 7.5% of SLH (7.5% of £10m marketcap = £750k) - those figures are approximates to make the point that there was no magical money made by Lowe there... hence he did not "line his pockets" then either, and if he did fair play to him for spotting a chance in the market place, that's the whole ethos of the stock markets isn't it? (The subsequent rise in price was mainly a result of a bubble in football stocks.)

 

So having established Lowe didn't swindle people or line his pockets, let see who did:

 

The reverse takeover meant placing a market value on SFC shares which were previously only worth a nominal £1 each. Now this is a contentious issue regarding the rights and wrongs of who should and shouldn't keep shares (prior to the reverse takoever) - ignoring the moral issue, the facts of the matter are that certain shares were bought at the nominal £1 value by existing SFC Directors. Of those Directors, the one who took *most* was Lawrie. That's not "allegedly", that's fact. So when you talk about "swindling people" by buying those shares for the nominal £1 prior to the takeover, those involved were Askham, Hunt, Gordon, Wiseman, Richards and McMenemy. Four of whom you actively backed and continue to back without question simply because they oppose Lowe. And the most guilty party, taking the largest slice of those "cheap shares", was Lawrie. Remember, fact, not conjecture or rumour.

 

Now let's move onto who has lined their own pockets. Of those people who bought the shares "cheaply", only 1 of them sold up after we floated. Step forward one Lawrie McMenemy (again) who sold the majority of his shares. Fact, not conjecture, rumour or planted mischief-making from Crouch. Fact.

 

Fast-forward 10 years to Wilde's incompetent "takeover" and who sold their shares? Hunt and Wiseman. Did they put the cash back into the club? No... so they are the ones, like Lawrie, who would be considered to have "lined their pockets" I presume?

 

Looking a bit deeper at who has actually put cash into the club (ignoring the cash that Secure brought in on the deal), we have the Open Offer, or Rights Issue, to raise cash for the stadium. Who put in cash then? Lawrie, Wiseman, Hunt, Gordon, Crouch, Wilde or Trant? Of course not, not a penny. Those who underwrote the issue and ended up buying half the new shares were Lowe, Marland, Thompson and Withers. Obviously Lawrie had the right to buy up the new shares for his holding so he bought those... oh no, wait, he didn't even buy his own shares in the Open Offer, not a penny.

 

So it's pretty clear, when looking at facts rather than myth, that those who swindled people were Lawrie and Co, and those who lined their pockets were Lawrie and Co. DUncan, please can you bookmark this post so you don't make the same claim every year for the next 20 years?

 

 

 

My heroes are Jimmy Page and John Bonham. I think you are mistaking common sense and fact for some sort of personal allegiance to someone I've never met. One of us is barking mad and it isn't me.

 

 

 

Ah yes, the ex-guardsman who played for Gateshead in the 50s. That's half a century ago. Again you are lacking objectivity and common sense, by all means pillory chairmen like Lowe, Dein, Glazier, Abramovich, Mandaric, Jordan, Hemmings, Lord Ashcroft and Delia Smith for running multi-million pound companies whilst not being footballers, but let's keep some perspective about the benefits of keeping a "swindling", "pocket-lining" McMenemy in the picture too.

 

Sh!t, £5 for typing up a load of facts, what a rip off! :-(

 

 

Mark, despite your uneccessary insult (it would be great if you could compose one post without resorting to insults or name calling) I will give you the courtesy of a reply. You obviously went to a lot of trouble - I thank you, I don't recall you posting anything similar, certaily not recently.

 

Last week I read the transcript from the Lowe v The Times libel trial which was very interesting indeed. As you say all parties, including Lowe made a lot of money overnight when their shares (quite a lot of which were gained in extremely dubious circumstances) shot up in value. I agree with what you say re Hunt, Wiseman, LM and Co. I also agree Lowe has not capitalised on his yet (I bet he wish he had) however that does not exonerate him from the initial shady money making exercise which was the reverse takeover.

 

Yes I suppose it is slightly hypocritical of me therefore to single out Lowe for criticism but I suppose the reason for that is Hunt, Gordon, Wiseman and Co did at least wake up and smell the coffee - however I never want to see them in any position of influence again.

 

LM is another one I would not shed tears over if he sailed off into the sunset, believe it or not although I still think he would have something to offer in a footballing capacity. He might have only played for Gateshead but he knows his way around Britsh football and the media which is my point re my preference for him rather than Lowe.

 

That leaves Crouch and Corbett who too my knowledge have not taken any money from SFC - certainly share wise. I have met both several times. Mary is a very nice, enthusiastic, dedicated fan who loves the club. Of that there is no doubt. Is she suitable to be a director? Yes I think so, as much as any fan - after all was it not Jackie Milburn who in his autobiography called one chapter "What the average director knows about football" and then left all the pages blank. I am sure MC would be the first to admit on a day to day basis however she would leave the "running" of the club to someone with more expertise.

 

Finally Leon Crouch. Well I prefer him to Lowe and Wilde, but that does not say a lot. He is a fan and a successful local businessman who it seems is prepared to put in some money and time to help us move forward. However his tenure last season - albeit it short and coming on the back of an almost disastrous 18 months under the executives - filled no one with confidence.

 

Do you know Mark, I could still live with Lowe if it wasn't for his "involvement" in the footballing side of things. My original falling out with him if you recall followed a letter I wrote to him about his becoming too involved in football decisions. I had heard through someone present in the boardroom who I do trust that at the time of the proposed Hoddle second coming Lowe put himself forward as DoF and I am pretty sure ever since he has dabbled in duties usually undertaken by managers with pretty awful results.

 

So in summary - yes I agree all the people involved wih the club at the time of the reverse takeover should hang their heads and none should be allowed back in any positions of influence. I could live with that - I wish the whole wretched thing had never happened and we had stayed at the Dell to be frank and with hindsight but we are where we and the arch architect is still in charge and we spiral ever downwards.

 

So I am prepared to take on some facts and criticise all parties (hardly the action of someone with a chip) but I have yet to ever hear you admit Lowe has made any mistakes.

[derry]

FFS people the club is a mess, never mind the infrastructure, the people running the club are the problem.

 

The average supporter only has his views and believe me all but a few are fed up to the back teeth.

 

Lowe has tried to be unique, and he has succeeded, in football terms his plan this year was a bridge too far.

 

The finances are a mess, the club is a mess, the team is a mess, the fans who support the club feel that the club is vested in the directors to act in their best interests.

 

The directors and ex directors have allowed their egos to ruin the club, to the fan that is unforgiveable.

 

Lowe and Wilde are on borrowed time, Crouch has some sympathy and is not viewed the same way.

 

Until Lowe is gone the club is in limbo. Nothing can be done and by the looks of it, it is going to get a lot worse.