londonsaint1604 Posted 25 February, 2009 Share Posted 25 February, 2009 Way too logical for this forum professor... ;-) Indeed. Could you please balance it out with some melodramatic ******** about how Southampton FC is slowly dying. Ta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheff Saint Posted 25 February, 2009 Share Posted 25 February, 2009 I don't normally bother to respond to posts by Alpine, who I'm sure is a lovely man, but who is so opinionated and so incredibly certain that his opinions are always right, that any debate would be pointless. But this post of Alpine's seemed a good example of stating opinion as fact, and of spreading cheap abuse about people who, whether they have succeeded or not, have given time and effort to the club, and did certainly not start this season with relegation as the target, any more than did the directors at Charlton, WBA, Brighton, or any of the other clubs that will ultimately be relegated this season. As so often, the simplistic supporter looks for someone to blame, despite the compexity and uncertainties of football. Would Alpine also blame Lowe for the club getting to the cup final, or reaching 8th in the Prem, or getting a state of the art stadium? No, he'd say that was luck or down to other people. Scapegoats are only responsible for what goes wrong, never for what goes right Lowe undoubtly oversaw a number of good things in the first half his chairmanship. If Lowe is a scapegoat but not responsible (given we are worse off now than when he took over 12 years ago - so a sustained period of time), can i ask what the criteria is, in your opinion, for Lowe to be considered to have failed? Would relegation this season be enough, or is he exempt because of the problems he inherited? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Paul Posted 25 February, 2009 Share Posted 25 February, 2009 My anger is directed at Lowe, because this season's policies are quite clearly his and Wilde is just a nobody at the Club, despite the tittle. I was prepared to judge Lowe on this season and not the past and from day 1 it's been a diaster IMO. Not retaining Pearson, employing Jan, loaning out all 3 of our senior fowards, treating the senior players like dirt, buying and loaning young players clearly not good enough and the constant blaming of others, are all down to Lowe IMO.Wilde should never have let him back, but Lowe makes the decisions and they've been very poor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr X Posted 25 February, 2009 Author Share Posted 25 February, 2009 My anger is directed at Lowe, because this season's policies are quite clearly his and Wilde is just a nobody at the Club, despite the tittle. I was prepared to judge Lowe on this season and not the past and from day 1 it's been a diaster IMO. Not retaining Pearson, employing Jan, loaning out all 3 of our senior fowards, treating the senior players like dirt, buying and loaning young players clearly not good enough and the constant blaming of others, are all down to Lowe IMO.Wilde should never have let him back, but Lowe makes the decisions and they've been very poor. Your still missing the point though wilde pledging his shares to Lowe allowed Lowe to return and make the bad decisions you mention so surely he has to have the most blame? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 25 February, 2009 Share Posted 25 February, 2009 Lowe undoubtly oversaw a number of good things in the first half his chairmanship. If Lowe is a scapegoat but not responsible (given we are worse off now than when he took over 12 years ago - so a sustained period of time), can i ask what the criteria is, in your opinion, for Lowe to be considered to have failed? Would relegation this season be enough, or is he exempt because of the problems he inherited? I think its clear and everyone would agree he has made big mistakes, but the professor is merely stating that its perhaps logical and rational to also acknowledge what ahs been achieved and I happen to agree... he is responsible for some things, but NOT for everything as some do like to insinuate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 25 February, 2009 Share Posted 25 February, 2009 Would Alpine also blame Lowe for the club getting to the cup final, or reaching 8th in the Prem, or getting a state of the art stadium? No, he'd say that was luck or down to other people. Scapegoats are only responsible for what goes wrong, never for what goes right No, I'd blame Strachan, Strachan and Southampton City Council in that order. The bastards... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheff Saint Posted 25 February, 2009 Share Posted 25 February, 2009 I think its clear and everyone would agree he has made big mistakes' date=' but the professor is merely stating that its perhaps logical and rational to also acknowledge what ahs been achieved and I happen to agree... he is responsible for some things, but NOT for everything as some do like to insinuate.[/quote'] And fair enough too. It's just a question i find interesting. There are a number of debates to be had (have been had!) on the merits or otherwise on what Lowe has done and how much impact they have had on where we are now. I just wondered, for those that defend Lowe, at what point can it be said he has 'failed'. I reckon he has, given he's halved our turnover and we're in our lowest league position for 49 years. Just wondered what others opinions were? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidthesquid Posted 25 February, 2009 Share Posted 25 February, 2009 No Alpine, is an opinion. No Alpine - more a hope and a dream than an opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidthesquid Posted 25 February, 2009 Share Posted 25 February, 2009 The thing about Rupert is he is just so hateable. Everything about him. He was born like it & he'll die like it. Wilde maybe equally culpable, but he doesn't inspire such strong emotion. A moderate dislike on a personal level is about the most he could raise in anyone. If WGS cadged a fiver off you, you'd say 'go on, have a tenner', if Rupert gave you a fiver with his smile you'd think 'you c**t, why wasn't it a tenner?' Just the way he is, I'm afraid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 25 February, 2009 Share Posted 25 February, 2009 And fair enough too. It's just a question i find interesting. There are a number of debates to be had (have been had!) on the merits or otherwise on what Lowe has done and how much impact they have had on where we are now. I just wondered, for those that defend Lowe, at what point can it be said he has 'failed'. I reckon he has, given he's halved our turnover and we're in our lowest league position for 49 years. Just wondered what others opinions were? The problem though is this say there are 10 different things required to be done well as a chairman - If you do 9/10 well but the 1 thing you fail on results in relegation, that is the thing you are remembered for and will forever be tainted with. With Lowe he has done perhap 5/10 things well, 5/10 badly . it just so happens that the 5/10 badly contained those things that we as fans believe MOST contributed to relegation. If we include his aggrogant manner and his crap PR in those bad 5, its no wonder he is the scapegopat for all evils. All i have ever tired to do is not hide the 5/10 bad things, but sometimes just try and point out the logic and merit in th 5/10 good, or even suggest that the 5/10 bad were not done with the INTENTION of screwing teh club in mind... and there are a few who seem to genuinely think that to be the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 25 February, 2009 Share Posted 25 February, 2009 The thing about Rupert is he is just so hateable. Everything about him. He was born like it & he'll die like it. Wilde maybe equally culpable, but he doesn't inspire such strong emotion. A moderate dislike on a personal level is about the most he could raise in anyone. If WGS cadged a fiver off you, you'd say 'go on, have a tenner', if Rupert gave you a fiver with his smile you'd think 'you c**t, why wasn't it a tenner?' Just the way he is, I'm afraid Feck me a philosopher amongst us - that is actually quite a good point! ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintwarwick Posted 25 February, 2009 Share Posted 25 February, 2009 No, I'd blame Strachan, Strachan and Southampton City Council in that order. The bastards... And who appointed Strachan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 25 February, 2009 Share Posted 25 February, 2009 And who appointed Strachan The same person who appointed : Wrigley Gray Sturrock Poortvillet Burley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INFLUENCED.COM Posted 25 February, 2009 Share Posted 25 February, 2009 The same person who appointed : Burley: If Burley's team had delivered us promotion at the end of the 2007 season, he would be regarded as a god in these parts.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 25 February, 2009 Share Posted 25 February, 2009 and Hoddle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 25 February, 2009 Share Posted 25 February, 2009 If Burley's team had delivered us promotion at the end of the 2007 season, he would be regarded as a god in these parts.... But it didnt, despite his chairman and board backing him more financially than any other Saints manager in history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintwarwick Posted 25 February, 2009 Share Posted 25 February, 2009 The same person who appointed : Wrigley Gray Sturrock Poortvillet Burley So are you saying Strachan is in with that lot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 25 February, 2009 Share Posted 25 February, 2009 So are you saying Strachan is in with that lot Draw whatever conclusions you wish; I am bored with your trolling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintwarwick Posted 25 February, 2009 Share Posted 25 February, 2009 Draw whatever conclusions you wish; I am bored with your trolling. Does it hurt to say Lowe did some things right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 25 February, 2009 Share Posted 25 February, 2009 Does it hurt to say Lowe did some things right No need for me to say it when sycophants like you are bending over backwards to say it at every opportunity........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 25 February, 2009 Share Posted 25 February, 2009 I do blame Wilde and I might indeed have been the first to label him the "Quisling" an epithet that suits him and seems to have gained currency on here. I have not the slightest respect for Wilde or Lowe, but Wilde could at least redeem his position to a certain extent if he were to be the catalyst for the removal of Lowe and his cronies from any position of power at this club for ever. If he truly had the best interests of the club at heart, which he had previously claimed, he would realise that by facilitating the return of Lowe, he was jointly responsible for the dismissal of Pearson and the appointment of the double Dutch, actions that have led us to the current parlous state in which we now find ourselves. If he felt any compunction towards righting the wrongs that he has inflicted upon us, he could withdraw his support for Lowe and throw it behind the scheme to appoint an independent chairman and chief executive. Only trouble is that he did that once before, so this time it would be better if his judgement on who should be appointed to the next board would be ignored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintwarwick Posted 26 February, 2009 Share Posted 26 February, 2009 No need for me to say it when sycophants like you are bending over backwards to say it at every opportunity........ Or is it some of us have a balanced view of things and not one dimensional like your sycophant view Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 26 February, 2009 Share Posted 26 February, 2009 Or is it some of us have a balanced view of things and not one dimensional like your sycophant view Who am I sycophantic about ? You dont even know the meaning of the word..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Landrew Posted 27 February, 2009 Share Posted 27 February, 2009 I do find it a bit of a wonder why Wilde doesn't get the flak that he could do. But standing alongside Lowe, he appears so impotent. He has all the strings to pull, but seems to be the puppet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
offix Posted 27 February, 2009 Share Posted 27 February, 2009 Would Alpine also blame Lowe for the club getting to the cup final, or reaching 8th in the Prem, or getting a state of the art stadium? No, he'd say that was luck or down to other people. Scapegoats are only responsible for what goes wrong, never for what goes right Maybe the responsibilities that come with the job have something to do with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 27 February, 2009 Share Posted 27 February, 2009 Maybe the responsibilities that come with the job have something to do with it? Totally agree, and I dont think anyone would argue against that. BUt some of us have tried to be as balanced as possible, because whether we like it or not, whilsts he holds shares, he will be 'involved' as will crouch or wilde whetehr on the inside or out. My basis for defending decisons and trying to 'understand' why certain decisions were made and continue to be made is not out some naive or misguided loyalty, but in recognition of this simple fact; he's here, and in the hot seat. If we can be open to this and maybe try to dig a little deeper than the 'obvious' failings, maybe we can unite in providing 'constructive' criticism and help in finding constructive solutions? who knows, but I dont think there is anything wrong with that approach even if open to accusations of idealism or naivity. Is that fence sitting and head in sand nonsense? I dont believe so, but a recognition that despite how passionately we feel about Saints, it IS afterall only football and as we all know there are more important things to get so p!ssed off about..way more important things for that level of emotion. I know as fans many feel an emotional ownership, but is the level of anger, whoever its directed act not really totally disproportionate in the grand scheme of things? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now