Jump to content

Can we stop blaming


Weston Super Saint

Recommended Posts

Nineteen Canteen's story about the Donny game is so far from reality it is quite funny. Tell me, was this when you were called Nineteen Canteen or were you known as Sundance Beast in those days??

 

How is your young son now?? Do you have a made up wife as well??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder how many other fans would have been prepared to put up with the dross that has been served up this season? To my mind it was amazing last Tuesday night, when so many fans turned up despite the weather. It was obviously in hope rather than expectation yet we still cheered on our side.

 

Most of us must need our heads examining for still turning up. We do turn up and we will but to turn the fans who have sufferd so much into scapegoats is laughable!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nineteen Canteen's story about the Donny game is so far from reality it is quite funny. Tell me, was this when you were called Nineteen Canteen or were you known as Sundance Beast in those days??

 

How is your young son now?? Do you have a made up wife as well??

 

Maybe it was when he was known as just plain old MISTER Marland ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you had a child with a serious drug habit, that was killing them and they had no job and no income and the only way they could buy drugs was with the money you gave them..........what's the last thing you would give them?

 

A silly analogy - football clubs need money as food, not drugs, Your child needs food to survive so you would willingly starve it

Even if you say that Lowe is a disease in the system, starving it out kills the patient, too, - medicine has moved on from purging & blood-letting

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong!

 

We had plenty of money in the Premiership, what 'better' players did we invest in then?

 

How much of that money was used to keep the best manager we've had in recent history [WGS], and how much was he given to buy 'better' players?

 

Oh, and how much was used to pay dividends to the PLC shareholders ;)

 

That was five years ago ffs, and we did spend money on players - McCann & Phillips to name two. That is all history - deal with the situation we are in now

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, my restaurant is failing. Although I brought in a chef not quite as good as the last one, used cheaper ingredients and yet kept the prices the same as when I had 3 Michelin stars and now I've only got one, those customers who have desserted my business are going to force me under. It's all their fault. They're a really fickle, disloyal bunch and if that's how they treat me and my business, I'd rather do without them...

 

I guess you are one of those people who considers himself a customer of SFC not a supporter (There is a difference)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess you are one of those people who considers himself a customer of SFC not a supporter (There is a difference)

 

I am both. Had you not considered the possibility? I live a fuller life than just football. I have a business to run, a family, the usual expenses, holidays, mortgage, car to run, etc.

 

To a certain extent, I would follow the team through thick and thin like most. But there comes a time when if we are taken for granted, the people running the club can cross a line whereby we believe that those other things in our lives become more important.

 

I can easily afford to pay for STs for my son, that is not an issue. But I'm the sort of person that also has the customer mentality too. I have reached that point now pretty well that I refuse to pay to watch dross any longer whilst the chief architect of that dross is still in charge. He cannot take us all for granted any longer. When he is gone, I will return, as my fan status will once again take precedence over my customer status.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was five years ago ffs, and we did spend money on players - McCann & Phillips to name two. That is all history - deal with the situation we are in now

 

McCann? HaHaHaHa! He asked for names of "better" players and you come up with him? Well, that confirms to all the quality of judgement that you possess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was five years ago ffs, and we did spend money on players - McCann & Phillips to name two. That is all history - deal with the situation we are in now

 

same mistakes still being made by rupert, Peckhart, Robertson, Pullis, Gasmi, Fortune the list is endless

why do we not get , players who will improve first 11 not just squad players

nothing to do with money just poor use of what we have

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am both. Had you not considered the possibility? I live a fuller life than just football. I have a business to run, a family, the usual expenses, holidays, mortgage, car to run, etc.

 

To a certain extent, I would follow the team through thick and thin like most. But there comes a time when if we are taken for granted, the people running the club can cross a line whereby we believe that those other things in our lives become more important.

 

I can easily afford to pay for STs for my son, that is not an issue. But I'm the sort of person that also has the customer mentality too. I have reached that point now pretty well that I refuse to pay to watch dross any longer whilst the chief architect of that dross is still in charge. He cannot take us all for granted any longer. When he is gone, I will return, as my fan status will once again take precedence over my customer status.

 

 

 

Spot on you are right...just doing those few words was painfull broke my right arm 2 days ago in the ice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They want us to be supporters not customers - all businesses do (ie Tesco loyalty cards) but all football clubs hope for even more loyalty & most, though not us, get it

 

The chairman of this business has constantly abused the customer.supporters over his period in charge and then trys to divert the blame to those people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fans for all that is wrong with SFC?

 

The fans don't :

 

Have any say in who is or isn't the Chairman / board members.

Pick the team.

Train the team.

Choose the tactics which the team play by.

Really have much influence over the match result.

 

So why oh why does everyone constantly blame the fans for the predicament we're in?

 

Everyone = Lowe/Wotte plus that eejit who wrote the Telegraph blog ... from what I can see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying it is all the fans' fault by any means, just that the negativity, recrimination and bitterness around the club will stop us ever moving forward.

I am not a fan of Lowe's either, and if a White Knight rode in to sort out the pile of sh1t we've become I would welcome him with open arms. But at the moment there isn't one & not likely to be one, either (except on the fantasy investor threads that pop up weekly) so we have to make the best of what we've got, which may not be a lot, but I still think the alternative could be worse. Everyone just assumes someone will take us on, but what happens if they don't? And as our sk8tey friends down the road are discovering, being some rich foreigners plaything is fine for a while, but when he gets bored life gets very nasty.

I fully accept that the board, managers & players take the bulk of the blame, but we are not blameless. It is not a coincidence that our team performs okay away & like startled rabbits in the headlights at home. And if I was non-supporter with money to put into the club, half an hour on this site would cure of that daft idea. Bitterness, recrimination and negativity breed more of the same. That is why we will go down this season and some of that is down to us, I'm afraid

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so we have to make the best of what we've got, which may not be a lot, but I still think the alternative could be worse.

 

Would you apply your view of:

 

a) we have to make the best of what we've got, and

 

b) I still think the alternative could be worse

 

to the manager's role?

 

If not, then why apply it to the CEO?

 

I don't think we are likely to see a White Knight riding over the hill, but that doesn't mean we should just accept a failing and divisive CEO any more than we would put up with a failing and divisive manager.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you apply your view of:

 

a) we have to make the best of what we've got, and

 

b) I still think the alternative could be worse

 

to the manager's role?

 

If not, then why apply it to the CEO?

 

I don't think we are likely to see a White Knight riding over the hill, but that doesn't mean we should just accept a failing and divisive CEO any more than we would put up with a failing and divisive manager.

 

He might be a failing & divisive CEO but he still seemingly has the support of the majority of shareholders so all our huffing & puffing is pointless, isn't it? We can protest against a manager to get the board to sack him, but nobody can sack the board, so the only way to bring them down is to destroy the club, which seems a bit futile really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having been to every home game this season, I think our fans have been brilliant considering the amount of shiit happening both on & off the pitch. The dutch experiment is clearly a complete disaster, some of our players are just not good enough & we have CEO who is despised by most, yet we still get behind our team.

We, as fans, have shown great restraint over these last six months, which is something we should all be proud of, although after experiencing just one home league win this season there is only so much us Saints fans can take!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having been to every home game this season, I think our fans have been brilliant considering the amount of shiit happening both on & off the pitch. The dutch experiment is clearly a complete disaster, some of our players are just not good enough & we have CEO who is despised by most, yet we still get behind our team.

We, as fans, have shown great restraint over these last six months, which is something we should all be proud of, although after experiencing just one home league win this season there is only so much us Saints fans can take!!

 

Couldn't agree more Baz , "complete disaster" sums this season up rather well .

 

But it's not just this season is it , 07/08 was pretty grim much of the time (ended well though :)) and I seem to remember reading on here that over a longer period the Saints had lost more games than any other club in British professional football :smt022 .

 

As a 'Talk Sport' fan I'll no doubt tune in on Monday lunchtime and hear that Andy Jacobs droning on endlessly about how bad Chelsea are and what a terrible situation they're in - try supporting the Saints for a week mate and then you might understand what a real struggle means because you haven't got a clue .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He might be a failing & divisive CEO but he still seemingly has the support of the majority of shareholders so all our huffing & puffing is pointless, isn't it?

 

I wasn't asking about what the majority of shareholders thought, I was asking you whether you would apply the logic of "we have to make the best of what we've got", and "I still think the alternative could be worse" to the managers role.

 

Because if the answer is no, then there is absolutely no reason why it cannot be applied to a salaried CEO.

 

We can protest against a manager to get the board to sack him, but nobody can sack the board, so the only way to bring them down is to destroy the club, which seems a bit futile really.

 

And you succinctly miss the point here as my suggestion was replacing the CEO in much the same way you would replace a manager.

 

I'm not advocating sacking the board, merely replacing an underperforming and divisive CEO. It's eminently possible to sack a CEO and to think otherwise shows a rather poor understanding of the situation.

 

Of course it would mean one/some of his current supporters would have to vote against him, but just as we have seen with the managers position, people can change and amend their position based on people's performance in the job.

 

Therefore, I have no doubt that protests (of various types) may focus the minds of certain shareholders who do have the power to start the process of sourcing a CEO who could do better than the current encumbent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When we first moved to SMS and we weren't winning games - we [Hoddle] even employed a witch didn't he? - was that the fault of the fans too?

 

Everyone on here goes on about things that happened years ago - we weren't even at SMS when Hoddle was manager. I'm talking about now - this season

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I take your point re the shareholders forcing out the CEO, but as he is a shareholder, not a paid executive it would a) need a significant number of those that have proxied their vote to him + Wilde, who would look very foolish indeed if he switched horses again, to force him out & b) those same shareholders, already looking down the barrel of financial ruin, to agree to fork out another £2-3 hundred K to fund a new CEO. So I don't see it happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone on here goes on about things that happened years ago - we weren't even at SMS when Hoddle was manager. I'm talking about now - this season

 

Yes, and you're blaming the fans because our home form is sh11t, but from what I've seen and heard, the fans have been [incredibly] very vocal in their SUPPORT for the team....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I take your point re the shareholders forcing out the CEO, but as he is a shareholder, not a paid executive it would a) need a significant number of those that have proxied their vote to him + Wilde, who would look very foolish indeed if he switched horses again, to force him out & b) those same shareholders, already looking down the barrel of financial ruin, to agree to fork out another £2-3 hundred K to fund a new CEO. So I don't see it happening.

 

He is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

, but as he is a shareholder, not a paid executive

 

He holds less than 6% as a shareholder, and in this context we are talking about him as a paid executive (Your assertion that he is not a paid executive is incorrect).

 

No offense, but you seem to be unable to understand the set up here.

 

a) need a significant number of those that have proxied their vote to him + Wilde, who would look very foolish indeed if he switched horses again, to force him out

 

I don't think Wilde has anything to worry about regarding changing his mind again, as his u-turn last Spring made him look very foolish. It would only take Wilde to change his mind to make Lowe's position untenable

 

Alternatively if Askham, Richards and one other withdrew their support then it would have the same effect.

 

& b) those same shareholders, already looking down the barrel of financial ruin, to agree to fork out another £2-3 hundred K to fund a new CEO. So I don't see it happening.

 

The shareholders will not be forking out anything, the Club foots the bill.

 

And IMHO, just as it would be a false economy to stick with a failing manager (who IMHO didn't resign without a pay off), it would also be a false economy to stick with a failing and divisive CEO.

 

The same logic that applies to replacing a failing manager should apply to a failing CEO. There is no difference in principle whatsoever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its a vicious circle really, but 'blame' is the wrong word. The fact reamins that whilst attendences drop, the financial pressures on the club increase, be it cash flow or bank pressure who may have loans securred against ticket sales particularly ST advances. Thus the club cant sustain certain contract levels, and costs are cut, which in turn leads to poorer results from poorere players and which means less fans have the appetite for spending good money watching poor football and bad results... no one can blame fans, but you can see the impact that a reduction in guarranteeed income can have on the pitch... What we need to stop doing is pretending... pretending we are somehow bigger than we are or holier than thou - our fans are just like EVERYBODY elses, when times are bad, and money is tight, there is always something else to spend the money on, especiallly if what is on offer is not great.

 

Blame NO, but there is a real impact isf the numbers decline, that is a simple fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, and you're blaming the fans because our home form is sh11t, but from what I've seen and heard, the fans have been [incredibly] very vocal in their SUPPORT for the team....

 

Those like me, and I hope you, have been. I'm talking about all those that haven't been attending - particularly those that then come on here and complain

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only way the fans can be said to be 'at fault' is declining attendences that have pushed us deeper into the financial mire.

 

You can't really blame them for that this season. Even the most ardent fan likes to see a winning side, and we've not had that this season. The difference should have come after the play off season, we had been playing good football, winning games and had a come within a hairs breadth or promotion. 32008 saw us secure a play off place against Souuthend.

 

The first game next season we had a respectable 25054 for the humiliation against Palace. We'd lose 5000 of them by the next home game (a victory against Stoke) which pretty much set our average for the rest of the season.

 

I don't blame the fans - but I do wonder whether things would have been different if those 12 thousand extra fans who watch us against Southend (or even the 5 thousand who came to watch us against Palace) had kept coming to games. Leaving aside any possible effect that playing in front of a full stadium might have had on the players we would be in a much sounder financial position and Lowe would not have been able to return. And without Lowe everything would be just a little bit better.

Edited by SaintDonkey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry 70's Mike I don't know what you are talking about but at the Doncaster game fans in the Northam started the negative chanting at 0-0. Then it got progressively worse and you are right it reached the pinnacle at 2-0 but you'd be wrong to suggest it was an instantaneous kneejerk response to their second goal, things were simmering well before then.

 

I am not who you think I am even if you are an expert in syntax analysis as it seems to me every poster uses the phrases and styles of other posters and some of my recent quotes that i thought original are already being used elsewhere and no doubt I am picking up on others which is hardly surprising given the debate and limited users. Happens in small companies and institutions across the land and nothing sinister.

 

Gotcha! There were no anti-Lowe or board chants at 0-0, were you at the game? They only started when we were 1-0 down which I didn't agree with (the timing) but that is simply factually inaccurate to say that it started at 0-0.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having been to every home game this season, I think our fans have been brilliant considering the amount of shiit happening both on & off the pitch. The dutch experiment is clearly a complete disaster, some of our players are just not good enough & we have CEO who is despised by most, yet we still get behind our team.

We, as fans, have shown great restraint over these last six months, which is something we should all be proud of, although after experiencing just one home league win this season there is only so much us Saints fans can take!!

 

Great post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gotcha! There were no anti-Lowe or board chants at 0-0, were you at the game? They only started when we were 1-0 down which I didn't agree with (the timing) but that is simply factually inaccurate to say that it started at 0-0.

 

Fans who were in the Northam for the Donny game stated on this forum that there were fans near them who started the anti-Lowe songs at 0-0 half way through the first half. My understanding is they were dealt with by those around them but clearly in the Northam at least the precedent towards the later depressing scenes had already been set. Now if you think I am telling lies the so are those posters who mentioned this issue on here after the game. From where I was you could hear for a short while pockets of 'anti-lowe' songs that never got going until Doncaster scored their first game and, well we all know the rest.

 

It may not have started to the degree it finished at 2 down but that was not my original point. My point was the bad atmosphere was simmering long before it all kicked off and unfortunately there are fans whether we like it or not who actually wants us to lose so they can gain support for their protests or simply to start a bit of trouble. Charlie Wayman was just one poster on here who said he wanted us to lose 5-0 against Swansea so they could prove their point or sentiments to that effect.

 

I'm not trying to rewrite history just confirming to those who wish to act ignorantly towards any eye-witness statements (not just mine) on this forum that despite your's and others protestations there are fans intent undermining the team from the start at the moment. Why? God knows but they are not supporters and never seem happy. Recommend you all do a Chorley and go and support your first love.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you pass those sentiments on to Mr Michael LFC Wilde ;)

 

Exactly but who fell for his promises? Wasn't it Crouch though who thinks he is qualified to be Chairman based on his experience at LFC? That's Lymington and not Liverpool. One thing Lowe should be supported for is the fact he is a one club man. Even Chorley the self styled SISA rep is widely acknowledged as a Man U fan. Couldn't make it up could you, Lowe should have thrown the 30 pieces of silver and not the other way round.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing Lowe should be supported for is the fact he is a one club man. Even Chorley the self styled SISA rep is widely acknowledged as a Man U fan. Couldn't make it up could you, Lowe should have thrown the 30 pieces of silver and not the other way round.

 

Only because no other sane football club will have him!!

Advocating violence now Nineteen tut tut especially after all you have posted about this topic!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean not in the way Hone or Hoos were - they were just effectively paid employees, not shareholders with a significant backing

 

 

The fact remains that you were wrong to suggest that Lowe wasn't a paid executive. In all the time he has been here, he has been an executive director, being paid for his services to the tune of several millions over the years, without putting more than a few bob in the kitty in the other direction. Some of that money had been used to purchase shares to cement his position, although as everybody now knows, his total holding is a paltry 6% or so.

 

Making comparisons with Hone, Hoos, Dulieu is also a red herring too. You might argue that Lowe being a shareholder was advantageous to the club, whereas the fact that Hone, Hoos and Dulieu didn't have shares could arguably mean that they attempted to act in the best interests of the club divorced from any considerations towards their own personal investment interests.

 

Personally I would be all for having an executive chairman and a chief executive who were not shareholders. Naturally they would be answerable to the shareholders - all of them, not just the Lowe/Wilde cabal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can only presume you really did stop attending games this season as you promised, because IMHO the support, given the numbers, has been fairly remarkable.

 

There has been minimal barracking of the players, some wholesome support and until very recently, no protests against the board, as people's support has been channeled behind the players.

 

You were making the same false allegations about our last relegation season, so I can only presume you're on a wind up.

 

 

 

Absolute rubbish, risible and I thought wse had moved on from posting such garbage.

 

A different Chairman could have implemented a number of different strateigies.

 

A different manager could have implemented a number of different strategies.

 

And these strategies could have been implemented within the financial constraints that we have to operate under.

 

Whether they would have been worse, similar or better is up for conjecture, but to suggest our hands are tied, the dice rolled and there was nothing else that could have been done is something out of La La land.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

 

We might as well just have carried on with Poortvliet if the manager makes no difference:D:D

 

Great post - what he said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing Lowe should be supported for is the fact he is a one club man.

 

You're not very good at this kind of thing are you Sundance/Flashman/The Bear/the other identities (delete as applicable), as Lowe has admitted to supporting both Ipswich and West Ham in the past?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact remains that you were wrong to suggest that Lowe wasn't a paid executive. In all the time he has been here, he has been an executive director, being paid for his services to the tune of several millions over the years, without putting more than a few bob in the kitty in the other direction. Some of that money had been used to purchase shares to cement his position, although as everybody now knows, his total holding is a paltry 6% or so.

 

Making comparisons with Hone, Hoos, Dulieu is also a red herring too. You might argue that Lowe being a shareholder was advantageous to the club, whereas the fact that Hone, Hoos and Dulieu didn't have shares could arguably mean that they attempted to act in the best interests of the club divorced from any considerations towards their own personal investment interests.

 

Personally I would be all for having an executive chairman and a chief executive who were not shareholders. Naturally they would be answerable to the shareholders - all of them, not just the Lowe/Wilde cabal.

 

Again you miss my point - being a shareholder with the backing of all his proxies isn't a good thing, just a fact, and because of it it makes him all but unsackable unless Wilde changes his mind again. The fact that he hasn't suggests to me that there isn't a very attractive plan B waiting to be unveiled. I think that was the point I first started to make......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...