Controversial post alert - ignore if you like Lowe

[saint1977]

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.

 

I agree with much of that Duncan although if we'd stayed at the Dell we'd probably be playing Eastleigh by now! There was no way of expanding the Dell bar building a Newcastle-style giant on the West Stand with a underground car park but think about the congestion and the light surrounding houses would have lost. The early years at SMS were very enjoyable times too.

 

As I've stated many times, I've less of a problem with Lowe in the whole SR scenario than the board in 1996. Wiseman can change sides all he likes but he's done nothing but take money out of the club and he'll always be tarnished with the Askham brush. He didn't cover himself in glory (allegedly if the media stories at the time were to believed) at the FA either.

Basically, we had a barrel of greedy snakes (to borrow Nick H's phrase from yesterday) at the top in the late 80s and early 90s and many of those snakes - Askham in particular - are still injecting venom into the club. Lowe could mitigate that venom with the Sky PL money and take risks knowing that we could turn to Plan A and B if we needed to. Sadly, relegation (which happens to most clubs at some stage outside of the top 4) badly limited Rupert's room to move, the Dome experiment was a costly white elephant for example.

 

Because of Askham's tangled mess, Lowe has had to rely on Wilde and Askham to carry him through and this has really damaged the club badly. Being relegated is no disgrace but the club has had no solid foundation on which to rebuild in the face of fiscal turmoil with pockets of culpable shareholders squabbling and *****ing.

 

Thanks for the mess Guy, I think it's better that the club don't have a minute's silence for you when you meet the great accountant in the sky as no-one is going to observe it.

[sadoldgit]

Of course Lowe has made mistakes. Everyone on the planet makes mistakes. It is called being human.

What I don't understand is that why Lowe's mistakes seem to be worthy of daily dissection more so than those of Crouch, Wilde or maybe the people who run Charlton etc?

Okay, so maybe some people would feel better about him if he took out a section on The Saints website to wear a hairshirt every day. Frankly I would much prefer that he spent his time looking after the finances and supporting his manager and staff (and keeping out of the spotlight).

As for being DoF. What is that exactly? Someone who negotiates contracts etc? I have no problem with that. Now if you were suggesting he made himself Head Coach then yes, I would have a problem with that. As for all the commotion about Lowe knowing nothing about football - he seems to have a better eye for goalkeepers than WGS! The bloke has run a football club for over a decade which means that he has over a decades experience of running a football club more than anyone on this site.

In hindight it wasn't the best decision in the wrold to bring in JP but if you look back and follow the thought process and see the bigger picture you could see why it happened.

In hinsight what was thought to be a very pragmatic and good decision (to bring in Redknapp) also backfired.

Unfortunetly for Lowe and SFC he does not share the crystal ball that many on here seem to have.

LOwe currently runs the club, I think he is entitled to get involved in any decsions that affect the club - just as Wilde and Crouch did. CEOs at every club make decsions about who comes and who goes - why should LOwe be any different? Because he is a "toff"? because people don't like him?

Running a club of our size and dealing with the expecations of the fans of a club of our size is no easy matter - as Wilde and Crouch found out and as the bloke who replaces Lowe will find out.

No one is saying that Lowe (or Crouch or Wilde or anybody else) is above critisism, but when when it goes to the depths that it frquently does here (and involves death threats) then it goes way too far (IMHO).

Things are cr*p. Things were often cr*p wen we were in The Premiership. Things are even worse for Charlton right now. Sh*t happens but this is just football. To wake up in the morning hating someone you have probably never met is not a very healthy situation to be in.

[Tamesaint]

 

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?

&

 

Nonsense???

 

I would have thought that the likes of Simon Jordan at Palace, the Golds at Birmingham, Marcus whatsisname at Ipswich, Delia at Norwich , Whatsit housebuilder at Wolves , & mega bucks at QPR all go to prove that the thought of having people who invest in the club is not nonsense.

 

Why does Rupert have to be different?

[Frank's cousin]

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 ?

 

TBF MIck, Thats a differeenet thread. We can all great this as an error of judgemnet again in hindsight, and agree that compounding thins with Wotte is stupid... but that is not really relevent to the debate above... which I have to say is quite interesting.

[Frank's cousin]

&

 

Nonsense???

 

I would have thought that the likes of Simon Jordan at Palace, the Golds at Birmingham, Marcus whatsisname at Ipswich, Delia at Norwich , Whatsit housebuilder at Wolves , & mega bucks at QPR all go to prove that the thought of having people who invest in the club is not nonsense.

 

Why does Rupert have to be different?

 

Thing is though Tame, we have to be realistic... its not Lowe's fault that his personal wealth is no where near these others, not even up to Crouches limited (relative) pockets. We simply dont know what Lowe would be prepared to put in (even if just to sure up teh share price and his own investment) if he had the resource of these others - I know some will say nothing, but there is no evidence to support that. Also its different for some of these clubs beiong in private hands... and if we expect Lowe as 6% shareholder to 'plough money in' we should also be asking teh Corbetts, LM, Trant, Wiseman, Wilde, Crouch to do the same.... Criouch has offered if Wilde and Lowe do, but why has he not included the other shareholders in this????

[up and away]

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.

 

A lot of what you say and do has a lot of merit, but others when you distort facts out of known recognition is totally unnecessary.

Lowe has his pluses and minuses, but trying to tarnish him in regards to the reverse take over is even something Choreley stopped short of. I completely agree that a lot of what happened during that reverse take over, was shall we say unsavory! But absolutely none of that can be even remotely linked to Lowe's side of that deal, it was all on the Saints directors and occurred prior to the deal being finalised. A period that Lowe had no influence over what so ever. McMoneyme cashed in super quick on that one, but does not even get a mention in passing by most.

The big disagreement I have with your stance on Lowe is this "interference" in team affairs. If playing bonuses impact our outgoings, it is right that someone points this out and what can be afforded. If we have a wage bill we cannot afford, everything should be done to get rid of these players to the benefit of the club. I don't care whether this is Lowe, Wilde or Crouch. These are business decisions that need to be made, irrespective of the person. I would not mind betting this also occurred under Burley, when you looked at team selection then.

I am half with you on Crouch. Although I firmly believe he is the most stupid of the 3, but he is prepared to put in money, to which there is no substitute. It just goes down to whether the money outweighs the damage or if he has learnt anything?

Mary Corbett I can see no value in, unless to highlight the blonde issue. If she could not see past what was happening with our finances or the stupidity of putting all the eggs in the investment basket, she really has nothing to offer apart from being a fan. Irrespective of personal values she may have, you could equally say the same about Jan. Trying to lay the blame at Dave Jones is preposterous, unless the figures given to the board were incorrect. It was obvious to so many from the outside that all the family silver was disappearing at an exponential rate and that is without the availability of the day to day accounts. Where I would say Jones is culpable is using his own vote to align with these issues, although his vote just seems attached to the executives of the day.

[Snowballs2]

Thing is though Tame' date=' we have to be realistic... its not Lowe's fault that his personal wealth is no where near these others, not even up to Crouches limited (relative) pockets. We simply dont know what Lowe would be prepared to put in (even if just to sure up teh share price and his own investment) if he had the resource of these others - I know some will say nothing, but there is no evidence to support that. Also its different for some of these clubs beiong in private hands... and if we expect Lowe as 6% shareholder to 'plough money in' we should also be asking teh Corbetts, LM, Trant, Wiseman, Wilde, Crouch to do the same.... Criouch has offered if Wilde and Lowe do, but why has he not included the other shareholders in this????[/quote']

 

 

Its all downto disposable resources..My guess is Corbett, LM etc have enogh to get by on current lifestyle but not enough to invest further sums.

Who would if reports of impending administration are correct. As an investment outside the top 5 Prem clubs football is not seen as a good investment, its fine if you want a toy to play with, but to invest your families future no way

[slickmick]

TBF MIck' date=' Thats a differeenet thread. We can all great this as an error of judgemnet again in hindsight, and agree that compounding thins with Wotte is stupid... but that is not really relevent to the debate above... which I have to say is quite interesting.[/quote']

 

 

But the start of the thread is relevant, its questioning RL involvement in picking the team. Surely it should be asked if picking the right manager would have had a bearing on his supposed interference.

The thread has diverted into dicussing reverse takeovers and how much money this that and the other have milked from the club.

Nothing to do with the original question.

Edited 5 February, 2009 by slickmick

[jonah]

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.

 

Duncan, please don't come over all holier than thou, you have as sharp a tongue as anyone and for someone who just libelled Lowe in your first post and was relatively vicious on the other list we were on, I think you ought to be able to take what you give with less of a whimper!

 

As for not remembering me posting these details, I posted them in response to you on that other list, I have posted them on saintslist, and I posted them on S4E. I wonder how you missed them?

 

that does not exonerate him from the initial shady money making exercise which was the reverse takeover.

 

Again, you seem to have just ignored everything I typed. Could you explain this "shady money" wrt Lowe? He bought shares in an undervalued company and agreed a reverse-takeover. All above board and legit.

 

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.

 

Oh dear, so basically you forgive them all their treachery because they also dislike Lowe like you? If you don't want them to have nifluence then you should not have given your backing to Wilde, nor should you be giving your backing to Crouch who has no plans to remove their influence AFAIA.

 

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?

 

I find your appraisal of MC very worrying - she was more culpable than most when it came to jumping on Wilde's white steed. How can somebody that negligent, nay incompetent, be suitable as a Director?

 

Finally Leon Crouch. ... is prepared to put in some money

 

No he's not. Never has, never will. He's just a gobby bloke with a lot of money but not enough to buy a footbal club outright.

 

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.

 

But Duncan you say one thing and do another - you claim you criticise all parties and take on facts, yet still maintain Lowe made "shady money", forgive Wiseman & Co because they now dislike Lowe, still backed Wilde all the way, and still back someone lilke Crouch. As for the comment about Lowe's mistakes, well I guess like your comment at the AGM asking Lowe when he would accept blame for relegation (was that this century or last?), you seem incapable of remembering anything people have said that doesn't fit in with your agenda. That's called re-writing history.

[jonah]

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

 

I actually liked the idea and think the integration of academy players is a good idea provided we have enough senior pros to blend them with - I think any neutral would say we played great football - I think he was pretty unlucky to be honest given the weak squad he had, we could easily have had another 6 or 9 points and have been mid-table. In hindsight JP probably went for too many youngsters - now Wotte is moving back towards older players. But I'm sure RL has interfered with both and told them to do that ;-)

 

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

 

I think we're doomed if we don't even give the bloke a chance. I think he has said he right things, has pinpointed parts of JP's plans which he thinks were wrong (lack of adaptability re formations), and has got us scoring again. Was there someone better available that we could afford to bring in who would want to come to a club in this state (financially and in terms of "support")? I don't know, quite possibly not.

[Fitzhugh Fella]

Duncan, please don't come over all holier than thou, you have as sharp a tongue as anyone and for someone who just libelled Lowe in your first post and was relatively vicious on the other list we were on, I think you ought to be able to take what you give with less of a whimper!

 

As for not remembering me posting these details, I posted them in response to you on that other list, I have posted them on saintslist, and I posted them on S4E. I wonder how you missed them?

 

 

 

Again, you seem to have just ignored everything I typed. Could you explain this "shady money" wrt Lowe? He bought shares in an undervalued company and agreed a reverse-takeover. All above board and legit.

 

 

 

Oh dear, so basically you forgive them all their treachery because they also dislike Lowe like you? If you don't want them to have nifluence then you should not have given your backing to Wilde, nor should you be giving your backing to Crouch who has no plans to remove their influence AFAIA.

 

 

 

I find your appraisal of MC very worrying - she was more culpable than most when it came to jumping on Wilde's white steed. How can somebody that negligent, nay incompetent, be suitable as a Director?

 

 

 

No he's not. Never has, never will. He's just a gobby bloke with a lot of money but not enough to buy a footbal club outright.

 

 

 

But Duncan you say one thing and do another - you claim you criticise all parties and take on facts, yet still maintain Lowe made "shady money", forgive Wiseman & Co because they now dislike Lowe, still backed Wilde all the way, and still back someone lilke Crouch. As for the comment about Lowe's mistakes, well I guess like your comment at the AGM asking Lowe when he would accept blame for relegation (was that this century or last?), you seem incapable of remembering anything people have said that doesn't fit in with your agenda. That's called re-writing history.

 

 

Mark you too are very selective with the facts to suit your agenda. You are full of criticism towards Mary for jumping on Wilde's steed and ask how someone that imcompetent and negligent could be a director whilst not a mention of the man whose steed she jumped on, who is now of course the Chairman of the Football Club. And you fail to mention the squeaky clean Rupert climbing on the same horse last summer despite Wilde's by then well-documented shortcomings and broken promises. Pot, kettle and all that.

[Snowballs2]

Jonah and FF we got enough problems without fans trying to kill each other..metaphorically speaking. Reserve your anger in a bid to get things back to normal at SMS

[Snowballs2]

And for my 2000 th contribution....Lowe and Wilde OUT !

[INFLUENCED.COM]

And for my 2000 th contribution....

 

So post 1999 was just for numbers sake.........you phony

[jonah]

You are full of criticism towards Mary for jumping on Wilde's steed and ask how someone that imcompetent and negligent could be a director whilst not a mention of the man whose steed she jumped on, who is now of course the Chairman of the Football Club.

 

You have GOT to be joking, have you had your fingers in your ears for the last 3 years Duncan?! I have had more than enough to say about Wilde since the day he turned up with his half-baked manifesto in which he'd spelt the name of the club wrong. Seriously, I cannot believe anyone is unclear about what I've thought of Wilde for the last 3 years.

 

You really just don't seem capable of understanding that it's possible to assess people on their abiltiies rather than your bizarre assesment criteria of:

 

"Do they like Rupert Lowe?"

 

Wilde 2006 - hates Lowe = Good

Wilde 2008 - backs Lowe = Bad

Corbett - hates Lowe = Good

Wiseman 1996 - backs Lowe, cheap shares = Bad

Wiseman 2006 - hates Lowe = Good

 

It's comical!

[Snowballs2]

So post 1999 was just for numbers sake.........you phony

 

 

I know what a devil!!!!

[jonah]

Jonah and FF we got enough problems without fans trying to kill each other..metaphorically speaking. Reserve your anger in a bid to get things back to normal at SMS

 

The problem is Snowballs2, it's exactly fans like FF, MC and LC who are trying to destabilise the club at the most important time in our history by using their positions of influence to meet their own personal agendas. The absolute number 1 criteria for SFC is to avoid administration. The absolute number 2 criteria is to avoid relegation. Somewhere down in 1,327th place is to spread rumours and encourage fans to demo before a home match.

[Give it to Ron]

The problem is Snowballs2, it's exactly fans like FF, MC and LC who are trying to destabilise the club at the most important time in our history by using their positions of influence to meet their own personal agendas. The absolute number 1 criteria for SFC is to avoid administration. The absolute number 2 criteria is to avoid relegation. Somewhere down in 1,327th place is to spread rumours and encourage fans to demo before a home match.

 

Did Rupert not do exactly that last season? Double standards there Jonah!

[Thedelldays]

Did Rupert not do exactly that last season? Double standards there Jonah!

just because rupert said it (and he is failing in doing so) does not mean it is now not the case..

[Give it to Ron]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/football_league/article3665879.ece

 

So he was trying to stabilise the club last season but when others are trying this season thats wrong......oh yeah I get it.

[Scummer]

Did Rupert not do exactly that last season? Double standards there Jonah!

 

I'm sure I remember Jonah coming on here last season saying that Lowe and Wilde were awful people for trying to destabilise the club whilst it was fighting a relegation battle. You could barely stop him talking about it.

[jonah]

Did Rupert not do exactly that last season? Double standards there Jonah!

 

I said when Wilde first came in that it should all be done in the summer, and I said the same when Lowe returned - hence I would say the same now. There was a difference in the first 2 situations in that the first time around it all hinged on Crouch and he dillied and dallied for a long time before deciding who to back. Last year there was a clear majority and as I remember it there was a quick, clean changeover once we finished the season. I don't remember a load of unfounded rumours being spread on Lowe's behalf when Crouch was chairman? And I don't remember him or his backers on local radio demanding fans join in a protest before the home matches as we fought against relegation?

 

If people want the boardroom changed again, fine - buy some shares and vote. But do it in the summer and try to have the good grace to accept the result if you lose - I didn't want Wilde, but I didn't spit my dummy, boycott the club and spread malicious rumours or start demos. Crouch and Corbett have been voted out, rather than rely upon manipulation of the fans they should fight their battles in the boardroom... for example, maybe MC could actually buy a couple of shares if it means so much to her?

[Gordon Mockles]

Duncan, please don't come over all holier than thou, you have as sharp a tongue as anyone and for someone who just libelled Lowe in your first post and was relatively vicious on the other list we were on, I think you ought to be able to take what you give with less of a whimper!

 

As for not remembering me posting these details, I posted them in response to you on that other list, I have posted them on saintslist, and I posted them on S4E. I wonder how you missed them?

 

 

 

Again, you seem to have just ignored everything I typed. Could you explain this "shady money" wrt Lowe? He bought shares in an undervalued company and agreed a reverse-takeover. All above board and legit.

 

 

 

Oh dear, so basically you forgive them all their treachery because they also dislike Lowe like you? If you don't want them to have nifluence then you should not have given your backing to Wilde, nor should you be giving your backing to Crouch who has no plans to remove their influence AFAIA.

 

 

 

I find your appraisal of MC very worrying - she was more culpable than most when it came to jumping on Wilde's white steed. How can somebody that negligent, nay incompetent, be suitable as a Director?

 

 

 

No he's not. Never has, never will. He's just a gobby bloke with a lot of money but not enough to buy a footbal club outright.

 

 

 

But Duncan you say one thing and do another - you claim you criticise all parties and take on facts, yet still maintain Lowe made "shady money", forgive Wiseman & Co because they now dislike Lowe, still backed Wilde all the way, and still back someone lilke Crouch. As for the comment about Lowe's mistakes, well I guess like your comment at the AGM asking Lowe when he would accept blame for relegation (was that this century or last?), you seem incapable of remembering anything people have said that doesn't fit in with your agenda. That's called re-writing history.

 

Pretty sure thread said "ignore if you like Lowe"

 

Maybe Duncan should have added "or if you're arrogant & think you know best and consider Lowe anything but a failure..."

[jonah]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/football_league/article3665879.ece

 

So he was trying to stabilise the club last season but when others are trying this season thats wrong......oh yeah I get it.

 

If you remember, actually, Lowe and Wilde wanted an immediate handover after the season finished. They also had a clear majority so it was a fait a compli, it wasn't rabble-rousing of the lowest order trying to remove the majority shareholders - the problem was the minority holders wouldn't bow to the majority (there's a surprise eh, SFC speciality) so they were forced to threaten an EGM. That was all conducted in the boadroom, not on local radio or via demos. Personally I find the 2 things totally different.

[saint1977]

I said when Wilde first came in that it should all be done in the summer, and I said the same when Lowe returned - hence I would say the same now. There was a difference in the first 2 situations in that the first time around it all hinged on Crouch and he dillied and dallied for a long time before deciding who to back. Last year there was a clear majority and as I remember it there was a quick, clean changeover once we finished the season. I don't remember a load of unfounded rumours being spread on Lowe's behalf when Crouch was chairman? And I don't remember him or his backers on local radio demanding fans join in a protest before the home matches as we fought against relegation?

 

If people want the boardroom changed again, fine - buy some shares and vote. But do it in the summer and try to have the good grace to accept the result if you lose - I didn't want Wilde, but I didn't spit my dummy, boycott the club and spread malicious rumours or start demos. Crouch and Corbett have been voted out, rather than rely upon manipulation of the fans they should fight their battles in the boardroom... for example, maybe MC could actually buy a couple of shares if it means so much to her?

 

Actually Jonah, I've agreed with many things you've said on this thread as well as those of Duncan but I can certainly recall driving on the A272 on the way to a meeting in Winchester in the Spring and hearing Radio Solent and the announcement by Lowe and Wilde that they did not agree with Pearson's appointment and were seeking a return. Not really what the club needed in the middle of a relegation battle (possibly before the Burnley game but I cannot exactly recall the date). I don't know about Crouch specifically but Charles Sale in that awful newspaper (for frustrated Sun readers that are worried about what the neighbours see and don't want to publically admit to voting BNP/UKIP) certainly made a number of negative reports and rumours of "boardroom unrest" even in 2006/7.

 

Both sides have spat the dummy and both have let the club and fans down very badly IMO. About time they all picked it up and moved onto another pram.

[saint1977]

If you remember, actually, Lowe and Wilde wanted an immediate handover after the season finished. They also had a clear majority so it was a fait a compli, it wasn't rabble-rousing of the lowest order trying to remove the majority shareholders - the problem was the minority holders wouldn't bow to the majority (there's a surprise eh, SFC speciality) so they were forced to threaten an EGM. That was all conducted in the boadroom, not on local radio or via demos. Personally I find the 2 things totally different.

 

It wasn't helpful though and could clearly have waited until AFTER the Sheffield United game. Sorry Jonah, but most people think both sides are as bad as each other.

[Gordon Mockles]

funnily enough I find him very interesting and well informed.I wish there were more like him on here.

 

Which is ironic seeing as you constantly, and consistently, peddle the most futile, inane and delusional fence sitting monologues defending the very people who are destroying our club. Why is that? It's a strange attitude to adopt.

 

You'd think the average Saints fan would be angry, annoyed and fed up to the back teeth of the array of abysmal decisions by a proven pair of failures, backed by money hungry (seriously tarnished) shareholders, culminating in our predicament, with potentially much worse to come. Well, they are. YET, you support Jonah, esq. for offering a smidgen of objectivity, diluted by a lot of hyperbole and speculative nonsense. Whilst Duncan may be p*ssed off and not as objective (call it passionate) as previously. Considering the circumstances, is it surprising?

 

You're both Saints fan right? Ok, you may not be outspoken, easy natured even (you, not Jonah). That's not a bad thing. I rant more than I should. However, I worry more about the fans that don't seem to have any fight or inclination to react yet deride those passionate enough to openly criticise a failed and broken regime. Nick G & H, Jonah, Alain P, Buctootim, esq. - posters s all happy to roll over and accept this mockery of a regime purporting to run a football club well.

 

Knowing about football and knowing about a business are 2 separate entities. Ideally, you marry up the two to run a successful football business. Lowe thinks he can, but has failed spectacularly. We're a mockery. Identify that and demand change. Unless you feel his tenure will improve our fortunes. Historically - I'd not bet on it. In fact, I'd be more confident asking Nick Leeson or Rupert to invest my shares wisely!

[Give it to Ron]

If you remember, actually, Lowe and Wilde wanted an immediate handover after the season finished. They also had a clear majority so it was a fait a compli, it wasn't rabble-rousing of the lowest order trying to remove the majority shareholders - the problem was the minority holders wouldn't bow to the majority (there's a surprise eh, SFC speciality) so they were forced to threaten an EGM. That was all conducted in the boadroom, not on local radio or via demos. Personally I find the 2 things totally different.

 

But the timing of the statement for the handover was abysmal and carried out via local radio, press etc. so no different than now and as mentioned above Chalie Sale did his bit.

As for the EGM bit well Rupert didnt exactly go easy last time did he so why would Crouch of done any different - although I think they both had reasons.

A) Lowe was waiting for Crouch to make his mind up which side

B) Crouch was waiting for Fulthorpe/Cousins.....and still waiting ;-)

 

I still believe we would of been far better off with all 3 working together or even just being reported to by a proper independant CEO and all way out of the limelight. Funded by Cowan and Lowes wages they are currently drawing.

 

I still believe in Utopia though when all 3 are banished for good!

[up and away]

Originally Posted by jonah

If you remember, actually, Lowe and Wilde wanted an immediate handover after the season finished. They also had a clear majority so it was a fait a compli, it wasn't rabble-rousing of the lowest order trying to remove the majority shareholders - the problem was the minority holders wouldn't bow to the majority (there's a surprise eh, SFC speciality) so they were forced to threaten an EGM. That was all conducted in the boadroom, not on local radio or via demos. Personally I find the 2 things totally different.

It wasn't helpful though and could clearly have waited until AFTER the Sheffield United game. Sorry Jonah, but most people think both sides are as bad as each other.

 

Crouch could have agreed privately about handing power over as soon as we were out of the relation scrap, but he decided not to do so. Crouch believed investment was just round the corner and holding out to the last minute for that investment to come forward. In the light of no agreement to stand down over an issue he had no chance of winning, then the only action remaining is an EGM. You can point the finger at Lowe and Wilde for raising the issue, but equally you can point the finger at Crouch for the matter being blown up.

[Give it to Ron]

Crouch could have agreed privately about handing power over as soon as we were out of the relation scrap, but he decided not to do so. Crouch believed investment was just round the corner and holding out to the last minute for that investment to come forward. In the light of no agreement to stand down over an issue he had no chance of winning, then the only action remaining is an EGM. You can point the finger at Lowe and Wilde for raising the issue, but equally you can point the finger at Crouch for the matter being blown up.

 

So if Crouch had delivered the investment by waiting so long that would of been wrong....20/20 hindsite is great isn't it.

Crouch believed Fulthorpe/Cousins were going to deliver.....so did many people on here and over the last 3 years from several tyrekickers including Wilde!

Whereas Rupert has been consistent and never delivered any decent investment in his tenure.

[hughieslastminutegoal]

I think Lowe has always wanted to leave a legacy and be seen as a revolutionary thinker. He is just useless, out of his depth and someone who is incompetent at running a football club and understanding the fans. He never seems to learn from his mistake and I am fearful for our club's future with him at the helm.

 

He IS a revolutionary thinker. His thoughts go round in circles.

 

Experienced manager - inexperienced - fails - experienced manager - inexperienced - fails - experienced manager - inexperienced -fails ...and so on.

[jonah]

It wasn't helpful though and could clearly have waited until AFTER the Sheffield United game.

 

You're right, it wasn't helpful. Equally it wasn't helpful that Crouch refused to acknowledge that a majority of shareholders request he handed over control - if he had just kept it internal and agreed to hand over once the season was "finished" (ie. we were safe), nobody would even have needed to know and there would have been no disruption. He chose to ignore the wishes of the majority despite it being absolute and unavoidable, and hence they had to threaten an EGM, just like a squatter has to be threatened with a court order. And now he's doing it again by trying to oppose the majority who are running the club. He's like a spoilt child waving his wad around demanding things are done his way - he needs to put up or shut up.

 

Sorry Jonah, but most people think both sides are as bad as each other.

 

That would be fine, but I don't think they do - if that were the case fans would be telling Crouch and Corbett to put a sock in it until the season finishes and sort out their squabbles in the boardroom over the summer. Come to that, fans would be telling Crouch he was no better than Lowe and we don't want him back either. But I refer you back to Duncan's method of appraisal above - that's what most fans work on sadly.

[Gordon Mockles]

Awww, Jonah must have me on ignore! Bless!

[ghq]

From memory FF, it was Len Shackleton in his book 'The Clown Prince of Soccer',and we were led to believe he was made to pay for the percieved impudence even though it was common knowledge.

[Frank's cousin]

fence sitting

 

Where does it say though that it has to be an either or? Why is it not possible to see good and bad in both sides, because from where I am sitting that is the case.

[Frank's cousin]

Whereas Rupert has been consistent and never delivered any decent investment in his tenure.

 

Which he has never promised....perhaps understanding how difficult it really is? I just stae that because it shows how easily the SAME situation can be spun to suit both sides...

 

Crouch is great because he has offered ...lowe has not

 

Crouch is crap because he promised and nothing happened, Lowe never promised what he could not deliver

 

take your pick....

[Frank's cousin]

 

 

That would be fine, but I don't think they do - if that were the case fans would be telling Crouch and Corbett to put a sock in it until the season finishes and sort out their squabbles in the boardroom over the summer. Come to that, fans would be telling Crouch he was no better than Lowe and we don't want him back either. But I refer you back to Duncan's method of appraisal above - that's what most fans work on sadly.

 

TBF JOnah...that has been kinda what I have been saying - I want them all to put a sock in it until season end and focus on survival - would welcome positive change, but dont believe the Sychophantic to fan approach of Crouch or his goobyness is the answer either... but sitting on the fence like that means I'm a luvvie in the perverse logic of this site.

[OldNick]

Which is ironic seeing as you constantly, and consistently, peddle the most futile, inane and delusional fence sitting monologues defending the very people who are destroying our club. Why is that? It's a strange attitude to adopt.

 

You'd think the average Saints fan would be angry, annoyed and fed up to the back teeth of the array of abysmal decisions by a proven pair of failures, backed by money hungry (seriously tarnished) shareholders, culminating in our predicament, with potentially much worse to come. Well, they are. YET, you support Jonah, esq. for offering a smidgen of objectivity, diluted by a lot of hyperbole and speculative nonsense. Whilst Duncan may be p*ssed off and not as objective (call it passionate) as previously. Considering the circumstances, is it surprising?

 

You're both Saints fan right? Ok, you may not be outspoken, easy natured even (you, not Jonah). That's not a bad thing. I rant more than I should. However, I worry more about the fans that don't seem to have any fight or inclination to react yet deride those passionate enough to openly criticise a failed and broken regime. Nick G & H, Jonah, Alain P, Buctootim, esq. - posters s all happy to roll over and accept this mockery of a regime purporting to run a football club well.

 

Knowing about football and knowing about a business are 2 separate entities. Ideally, you marry up the two to run a successful football business. Lowe thinks he can, but has failed spectacularly. We're a mockery. Identify that and demand change. Unless you feel his tenure will improve our fortunes. Historically - I'd not bet on it. In fact, I'd be more confident asking Nick Leeson or Rupert to invest my shares wisely!

Not outspoken, easy natured Lol.

I was not fooled by the Wilde bunch, I was on the former forums debating with FF , Ump Alps, and many more saying to them to watch out for the carpet baggers and not to fall into the trap of 'anyone but Lowe.'

If you really believe that football and business is not connected then you are 1 sucker and no doubt would fall for time share sellers,cold callers telling you have won free holidays and Nigerian bankers who need a short term loan.(I dont believe you are )

Football is a business, it has been for generations.SFC was a cosy gentlemans club 30years ago and it now is just more open with it now.

You, like myself and Jonah and FF ,Ump etc love the club.We are all fools because we feel that in some way are attached to it like a family member.If it was called McDonalds FC we would at this time (Last 3years) now be supporting BurgerKing Fc as the quality had dropped and the service poor.

In my 40 years of going to saints (started when i was 8-9 years old) I have spent too much of my life fretting about us.At Shirley school the teachers used my love of football and saints to punish me if my work was not up to scratch or i had wronged, by stoppoing me playing or getting my parents to stop me goingto an evening match to do homework.i have nights awake worrying that we were going down from the PL or reliving the Tranmere game over in my head after losing a 3 goal lead for days afterwards,being upset as another hero had left the club and what finally woke me up to the idiocy of my passion when a tv remote control went smashing against the lounge wall after Bolton scored a last minute equaliser.

This stupid loyalty and feeling an affinity to it and many other things made me an easy target for the business side of the club.

'Dad can I have a pair of jeans?' 'No I'm not paying that, its a rip off, they are £30' then 10 minutes later 'dad can I have a saints shirt? 'Yeah heres the £35 .'

I hope you can see where Im coming from, we are being played and have ALWAYS been whoever is in charge. We are suckers fools, idoiots and salesmens dreams as we we would never ask for a dicount as the money is going to 'our club'

I want them all gone, the WHOLE lot as they do not deserve the fans we have.

[Fitzhugh Fella]

From memory FF, it was Len Shackleton in his book 'The Clown Prince of Soccer',and we were led to believe he was made to pay for the percieved impudence even though it was common knowledge.

 

You are quite right - should have checked - at least Jonah didn't spot though. Don't tell him now.

Cheers

[Guan 2.0]

Pretty sure thread said "ignore if you like Lowe"

 

Maybe Duncan should have added "or if you're arrogant & think you know best and consider Lowe anything but a failure..."

 

Or maybe you should remember that only the mods get to decide who takes part in these forums. Otherwise, what's the point of having these forums, if not for debate. If posters suddenly decide that people who don't agree with them should have no say, it paints an artificial picture. It happens already on here, with certain groups of posters heavily posting on certain threads, and making sure to label anyone who disagrees with them.

 

After all, people could then go on to claim a consensus view on Lowe, or another subject, when they've had no real discussion, just 3 pages of nodding donkeys agreeing with each other.

[trousers]

Sorry Jonah, but most people think both sides are as bad as each other.

That would be fine, but I don't think they do - if that were the case fans would be telling Crouch and Corbett to put a sock in it until the season finishes and sort out their squabbles in the boardroom over the summer. Come to that, fans would be telling Crouch he was no better than Lowe and we don't want him back either. But I refer you back to Duncan's method of appraisal above - that's what most fans work on sadly.

 

I think this is all about perception.

 

Indeed, I have read Duncan saying on here on many occasion that he would rather see the back of all 3 of them.

 

I'm sure if there was a poll on here with 4 options - (a) Lowe (b) Wilde © Crouch (d) None of the Above - option (d) would win by a handsome majority.

 

However, (mis)perception of opinion tends to be swayed by the simple fact that most people will reserve their criticism for the current incumbents in any given 'bad' scenario.

 

Take politics for example. I don't rate any of the main parties at the moment but I tend to vent my spleen most at Labour because they are the ones in power. Simple human nature.

 

Dig below the understandable emotive nature of Duncan's posts and I see more balance than is perhaps perceptible on the surface.

Edited 5 February, 2009 by trousers

[Snowballs2]

Trousers you are so right ! Most of us would be glad to see all three groups gone.

 

How do I Judge them?

1) Lowe his failed master plan of total football, Dutch failed coaches playing the youth and poor managerial appointments over time...Rubbish

2) Wilde failed promises and the introduction of the failed Execs...Rubbish

3) Crouch left the deadly duo in charge too long....Rubbish

 

 

Of those 3 groups Crouch has been the least destructive...possibly because he was around for a much shorter time

 

 

all three groups together failure and Rubbish

[trousers]

Trousers you are so right !

 

It's only taken me three years to earn such an accolade on here.

 

Cheers!

[Give it to Ron]

Which he has never promised....perhaps understanding how difficult it really is? I just stae that because it shows how easily the SAME situation can be spun to suit both sides...

 

Crouch is great because he has offered ...lowe has not

 

Crouch is crap because he promised and nothing happened, Lowe never promised what he could not deliver

 

take your pick....

 

My pick continues to be what I stated above either:

 

a) all gone and never come back

b) all stay in the background and have an independant CEO run things.

 

Thats not totally ridding us of the academy philosophy but bringing in a decent manager who will get us out of this mess at home.

We pay for all this by getting rid of the useless coaching staff we have - Wotte, Gorre, Van Waals plus Rupert and Cowans salaries.

 

I wonder what happened to the compnesation we received for Burley - gone to the overdraft I suppose.

[SFC Forever]

I like a few others would much prefer to see someone come in and take the three lots of shares. The only way we will be sure that Lowe has gone is by getting his shares. Lowe even has the gall to turn down offers unless all their shares are bought.

Instead of aiming at him perhaps the buyer should try buying the other shareholders out and forcing the issue in a way that even Lowe can't stop. There must be some shareholders ready to unload now before they lose any more money. These are where the sharks should be hunting.

Next season we are likely to be playing in a lower league which will mean lower income. Unless we are in a position whereby promotion is a possibility. Less TV money and less advertising along with ever decreasing gates.

The infighting has to stop and the only way I see that happening is to rid ourselves of Lowe once and for all. All IMHO of course.

[saint1977]

You're right, it wasn't helpful. Equally it wasn't helpful that Crouch refused to acknowledge that a majority of shareholders request he handed over control - if he had just kept it internal and agreed to hand over once the season was "finished" (ie. we were safe), nobody would even have needed to know and there would have been no disruption. He chose to ignore the wishes of the majority despite it being absolute and unavoidable, and hence they had to threaten an EGM, just like a squatter has to be threatened with a court order. And now he's doing it again by trying to oppose the majority who are running the club. He's like a spoilt child waving his wad around demanding things are done his way - he needs to put up or shut up.

 

 

 

That would be fine, but I don't think they do - if that were the case fans would be telling Crouch and Corbett to put a sock in it until the season finishes and sort out their squabbles in the boardroom over the summer. Come to that, fans would be telling Crouch he was no better than Lowe and we don't want him back either. But I refer you back to Duncan's method of appraisal above - that's what most fans work on sadly.

 

There is merit in your first paragraph but it comes back to my original point - neither side should have been using the media as a megaphone. It should have been done via a third party backchannel that was trusted by both sides.

 

On your second paragraph, whilst there is some support for Crouch on here, I'm a bit skeptical after the whole Tommac business although I did like the fact that he stood against the Euell signing as I'd previously blamed Crouch for that. F ucking Keith Wiseman signed that off - that bloke has the reverse impact of the Midas effect. I think many fans, whilst respectful of his wonderful achievements as our manager, are also wary of LM. Mary Corbett comes across well and as a fan and I know this point has been made before but I do wish major shareholders had looked into Mike Wilde in a bit more depth. That also includes Rupert second time around as well. That said, Askham left the door open to the prat in the first place.

 

The post showing that both Askham/Lowe and Leon/Lawrie have bought boxes with sarcastic names right behind the Director's Area when both were removed from the board illustrates this point very well. Go and have a look at people's reaction on that thread and tell me that people don't think BOTH sides are as pathetic as each other. If they worked together, great but sadly that will never happen.

Edited 5 February, 2009 by saint1977

[Delmary]

I think this is all about perception.

 

Indeed, I have read Duncan saying on here on many occasion that he would rather see the back of all 3 of them.

 

I'm sure if there was a poll on here with 4 options - (a) Lowe (b) Wilde © Crouch (d) None of the Above - option (d) would win by a handsome majority.

 

However, (mis)perception of opinion tends to be swayed by the simple fact that most people will reserve their criticism for the current incumbents in any given 'bad' scenario.

 

Take politics for example. I don't rate any of the main parties at the moment but I tend to vent my spleen most at Labour because they are the ones in power. Simple human nature.

 

Dig below the understandable emotive nature of Duncan's posts and I see more balance than is perhaps perceptible on the surface.

Good post. They need to all sell up as they're all equally to blame for the mess we're in today. Despite this view I've got a lot of respect for Leon as a fellow fan. He's pumped thousands into this club via sponsorship & corporate. Same as the Draper family.

[saint1977]

I think this is all about perception.

 

Indeed, I have read Duncan saying on here on many occasion that he would rather see the back of all 3 of them.

 

I'm sure if there was a poll on here with 4 options - (a) Lowe (b) Wilde © Crouch (d) None of the Above - option (d) would win by a handsome majority.

 

However, (mis)perception of opinion tends to be swayed by the simple fact that most people will reserve their criticism for the current incumbents in any given 'bad' scenario.

 

Take politics for example. I don't rate any of the main parties at the moment but I tend to vent my spleen most at Labour because they are the ones in power. Simple human nature.

 

Dig below the understandable emotive nature of Duncan's posts and I see more balance than is perhaps perceptible on the surface.

 

Excellent post and indeed electorates do vent their spleen at those in power. The 1992 election was a great example - there was a lot of anger at the Tories for the recession, Poll Tax, bodged NHS reform, Care in the Community etc etc but there was a sense of "You made this mess, you sort it out". Difference is, the electorate must have had enough confidence for them to do that, plus they had a change of leader (Major) not that long beforehand. Thatcher would have been murdered at the polls in 1992, even though Kinnock was fairly unpopular. I just don't think there is a feeling of confidence that the current regime can get it right with Saints.

 

In the election of 1997 of course, the Tories got routed even though the economy had recovered because they couldn't shake off the perception of being a party in the toils. Having David Mellor as a Cabinet minister probably didn't help either.

[Weston Saint]

There is merit in your first paragraph but it comes back to my original point - neither side should have been using the media as a megaphone. It should have been done via a third party backchannel that was trusted by both sides.

 

On your second paragraph, whilst there is some support for Crouch on here, I'm a bit skeptical after the whole Tommac business although I did like the fact that he stood against the Euell signing as I'd previously blamed Crouch for that. F ucking Keith Wiseman signed that off - that bloke has the reverse impact of the Midas effect. I think many fans, whilst respectful of his wonderful achievements as our manager, are also wary of LM. Mary Corbett comes across well and as a fan and I know this point has been made before but I do wish major shareholders had looked into Mike Wilde in a bit more depth. That also includes Rupert second time around as well. That said, Askham left the door open to the prat in the first place.

Not sure why you blame him for the tommac business. My understanding is that the Lowe group were in touch with him first (after he had been rebuffed by the Exec over the alleged agent to Allen episode). Wilde and Crouch would not play ball over selling their shares. It was only later when he started posting on here. In fact, following his first post on here I actually replied "is that you Tom" but later edited when I realised it was and I might be breaching confidences. Crouch's involvement with him direct was a little later.

[saint1977]

Not outspoken, easy natured Lol.

I was not fooled by the Wilde bunch, I was on the former forums debating with FF , Ump Alps, and many more saying to them to watch out for the carpet baggers and not to fall into the trap of 'anyone but Lowe.'

If you really believe that football and business is not connected then you are 1 sucker and no doubt would fall for time share sellers,cold callers telling you have won free holidays and Nigerian bankers who need a short term loan.(I dont believe you are )

Football is a business, it has been for generations.SFC was a cosy gentlemans club 30years ago and it now is just more open with it now.

You, like myself and Jonah and FF ,Ump etc love the club.We are all fools because we feel that in some way are attached to it like a family member.If it was called McDonalds FC we would at this time (Last 3years) now be supporting BurgerKing Fc as the quality had dropped and the service poor.

In my 40 years of going to saints (started when i was 8-9 years old) I have spent too much of my life fretting about us.At Shirley school the teachers used my love of football and saints to punish me if my work was not up to scratch or i had wronged, by stoppoing me playing or getting my parents to stop me goingto an evening match to do homework.i have nights awake worrying that we were going down from the PL or reliving the Tranmere game over in my head after losing a 3 goal lead for days afterwards,being upset as another hero had left the club and what finally woke me up to the idiocy of my passion when a tv remote control went smashing against the lounge wall after Bolton scored a last minute equaliser.

This stupid loyalty and feeling an affinity to it and many other things made me an easy target for the business side of the club.

'Dad can I have a pair of jeans?' 'No I'm not paying that, its a rip off, they are £30' then 10 minutes later 'dad can I have a saints shirt? 'Yeah heres the £35 .'

I hope you can see where Im coming from, we are being played and have ALWAYS been whoever is in charge. We are suckers fools, idoiots and salesmens dreams as we we would never ask for a dicount as the money is going to 'our club'

I want them all gone, the WHOLE lot as they do not deserve the fans we have.

 

Good post Nick, we've all been there.