JohnnyFartPants Posted 4 March, 2009 Share Posted 4 March, 2009 Thnanks for compliment R & D. When did Rupert ask you to be a Saints fan? R & D? This same old silly accusation that anyone who thinks you are acting like a child must be a Lowe supporter is so lame. For Gods sake grow up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 4 March, 2009 Share Posted 4 March, 2009 Perhaps Nineteen you could copy/paste the replies on my original thread that were questioning my thinking. All the mods could see were nonsense/abuse which carried over to other threads i started to point out the poor decision by the mods. As usual you just post sanctimonious claptrap. I was just commenting on GT's post and my interpretation of his comments that you 'got slagged off' as people questioning your thinking. Given the circumstances I think that is a reasonable assumption to make and lets be clear about this you assume everything and know nothing so should understand where i am coming from. Now I am off to have a nice pious cup of tea to be enjoyed on the moral high ground with all the other Lowe life. (Can't beat a nice bit of self abuse) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 4 March, 2009 Share Posted 4 March, 2009 Funny how it is always those who support Lowe ( if seemingly only tacitly ) who tell others to be quiet or find another forum etc etc etc. I give you Nickh------------The democratic voice of reason. I may at times think to myself I wish some would go to other sites but dont say it as i think it is good to read others views.I dont like some of which is said but i know the same is in reverse. I come from my own position but find it difficult to understand some who only seem happy in negativity. It is football 22 men kicking a bag of air for a living, it doesnt matter really if you really stand back and think about it.In fact it is ridiculous how we as adults let it get so important. How about we talk about the chairman of ICI and analyise what he has done wrong...not so interesting though is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 4 March, 2009 Share Posted 4 March, 2009 Oh I forgot that because Gingeletiss has said it it must be right. I have put forward my thoughts and stand by them. I dont know how old you are but if you went through the 60-70-80's and listened to a stream of people promising the stadium and all it was came to nothing then perhaps you will understand why i am grateful that te new one was built.i dont know who was the main mover each side has their own version.All I know is RL was on wathc ewhen we got it, not LC or even John Corbett. I notice you edited my wording,????:confused::confused::confused: so I have put it back in full. 'You see if you can't see any good you are a fool, because nobody is all bad and RL has been positive and negative' So dont turn the words and if you are also of the same mind that he has done all wrong you are also a fool. See....on another thread I get pillarised for saying idiot, but it's OK;) The attendances will rise when results improve whoever is in charge. Are you saying the attendances will fall? No, without question, attendances have fallen, that is a fact. Whereas, your assumtion that they will rise again, is just that....an assumption. I have answred the same old nonsense you put out.Come back with a compelling arguement and i am willing to change, but if it is the same old mantra give your typing fingers a rest. Like you, I wear reading glasses, so go back to my post, and show me where I have edited your words. I have just put in my reponses, in Red. 55 as it happens, went to wembly in '76, in '77 was all agog at the rumour, that Saints were going to move into a new ground, built on the old Lido opposite the station.........guess it didn't happen. Or the one where they were going to buy out the houses on the East stand side, and spin the ground around.........guess that didn't happen either, oh yes, old enough, I was a Choclette box kid, and a West stand season ticket holder. However, I digress, I've used Red again, to make it easy for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 4 March, 2009 Share Posted 4 March, 2009 I may at times think to myself I wish some would go to other sites but dont say it as i think it is good to read others views.I dont like some of which is said but i know the same is in reverse. I come from my own position but find it difficult to understand some who only seem happy in negativity. It is football 22 men kicking a bag of air for a living, it doesnt matter really if you really stand back and think about it.In fact it is ridiculous how we as adults let it get so important. How about we talk about the chairman of ICI and analyise what he has done wrong...not so interesting though is it? Exactly, I suspect 1965 would have Lowe alongside Fred Goodwin taking questions from the Treasury Select Committee. The important thing is has Lowe made his decisions right or wrong in the best interests of the club and considering all the other mitigating circumstances unprecedented in modern times. Whilst, the JP decision was wrong in hindsight few could argue it was negligient as it had the support of the majority at the start of the season. We all make wrong decisions the question is were they negligent. The fact Lowe has seemingly prepared for it going wrong would suggest prudence on his part, something of course he has been accused of in the past when fuller was his solitary signing in the close season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 4 March, 2009 Share Posted 4 March, 2009 Its obvious - Lowe WANTED us to fail - must be really disappointed we won three on the bounce if you ask me...... ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 4 March, 2009 Share Posted 4 March, 2009 Like you, I wear reading glasses, so go back to my post, and show me where I have edited your words. I have just put in my reponses, in Red. 55 as it happens, went to wembly in '76, in '77 was all agog at the rumour, that Saints were going to move into a new ground, built on the old Lido opposite the station.........guess it didn't happen. Or the one where they were going to buy out the houses on the East stand side, and spin the ground around.........guess that didn't happen either, oh yes, old enough, I was a Choclette box kid, and a West stand season ticket holder. However, I digress, I've used Red again, to make it easy for you. By splitting the sentence and so highlighting the fool part it gave the wrong slant to the meaning of the words i put. Im glad you are much older than me (giggle, all of 6 years) and will also have felt the disappointment of missing out on stadiums when the powers that be kept teasing us.It was also going to be situated by the heliport at one time as well.Im surprised you do not feel as pleased that we have a stadium to be proud of (the team at present is not, but for me it hasnt been since Nichols time) However you want to dress it up RL was part of the reason we got it. Perhaps the wording fool is offensive to some but it normally is warrented when i say it, on this occasion I will unreservedly withdraw it on this occasion. Are you going to state that attendances are not going to increase then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 4 March, 2009 Share Posted 4 March, 2009 Exactly, I suspect 1965 would have Lowe alongside Fred Goodwin taking questions from the Treasury Select Committee. The important thing is has Lowe made his decisions right or wrong in the best interests of the club and considering all the other mitigating circumstances unprecedented in modern times. Whilst, the JP decision was wrong in hindsight few could argue it was negligient as it had the support of the majority at the start of the season. We all make wrong decisions the question is were they negligent. The fact Lowe has seemingly prepared for it going wrong would suggest prudence on his part, something of course he has been accused of in the past when fuller was his solitary signing in the close season.NC i cant agree about JP having the majority votre. I myself and many others I believe went into it understanding it was what the club had to do. I was sceptical but supportive in that I felt and from what I knew we were in a corner trapped like rats and this was the best way out. RL kept Jan too long but he has proved me wrong on this occasion as I was anti the Wotte appointment as I had at that stage heard from people that he was not liked.I then heard how he conducted himself at the first team/staff get together and from then on I realised he had some thing about him.I sensed that he knew team spirit was paramount and he has strived to get that. I had a few cheap shots at me when i let it be known that the camp were united and up for it, but now they have shown it is the fact people have warmed a bit to Wotte. RL is prudent IMO and whilst i would love my club to be very pro active inthe transfer market i understand the need for prudence and so accept we can't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 4 March, 2009 Share Posted 4 March, 2009 (edited) By splitting the sentence and so highlighting the fool part it gave the wrong slant to the meaning of the words i put. Im glad you are much older than me (giggle, all of 6 years) and will also have felt the disappointment of missing out on stadiums when the powers that be kept teasing us.It was also going to be situated by the heliport at one time as well.Im surprised you do not feel as pleased that we have a stadium to be proud of I'd be greatfull if you could pull that quote up for me!! (the team at present is not, but for me it hasnt been since Nichols time) However you want to dress it up RL was part of the reason we got it. Perhaps the wording fool is offensive to some but it normally is warrented when i say it, on this occasion I will unreservedly withdraw it on this occasion. Are you going to state that attendances are not going to increase then? No, because I haven't said that, if I could be sure of that as a fact, then my crystal ball would equally be giving the next set of lottery numbers, and I'd e filthy rich by now, and able to buy the bl**dy club. It's your stated fact, not mine There you go.............30/15 Edited 4 March, 2009 by Gingeletiss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eelpie Posted 4 March, 2009 Share Posted 4 March, 2009 Exactly, I suspect 1965 would have Lowe alongside Fred Goodwin taking questions from the Treasury Select Committee. The important thing is has Lowe made his decisions right or wrong in the best interests of the club and considering all the other mitigating circumstances unprecedented in modern times. Whilst, the JP decision was wrong in hindsight few could argue it was negligient as it had the support of the majority at the start of the season. We all make wrong decisions the question is were they negligent. The fact Lowe has seemingly prepared for it going wrong would suggest prudence on his part, something of course he has been accused of in the past when fuller was his solitary signing in the close season. Of course we all make wrong decisions from time to time. The question is, how long does it take us to recognise that we have made an error of judgement (if at all)? Not mentioning any names (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 4 March, 2009 Share Posted 4 March, 2009 There you go.............30/15 I assume it is 30/0 to me as I cant recall you winning any points.This is an ace by the way 40/0 Will attendances improve or decrease/stay the same. I would have thought it be reasonable to expect them to go up on the new feel good factor, whilst not fact YET i doubt there is anybody who would think they won't or do you think not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 4 March, 2009 Share Posted 4 March, 2009 I assume it is 30/0 to me as I cant recall you winning any points.This is an ace by the way 40/0 Will attendances improve or decrease/stay the same. I would have thought it be reasonable to expect them to go up on the new feel good factor, whilst not fact YET i doubt there is anybody who would think they won't or do you think not? Going back to when. A month ago/6 months/a year ago/or perhaps when we were getting 32,000 whilst in the premiership. What do you want me to guess at. Yes, we have just won 3 games in a row, I suspect our next home game will attract a few more fans......not rocket science that, now is it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 4 March, 2009 Share Posted 4 March, 2009 Going back to when. A month ago/6 months/a year ago/or perhaps when we were getting 32,000 whilst in the premiership. What do you want me to guess at. Yes, we have just won 3 games in a row, I suspect our next home game will attract a few more fans......not rocket science that, now is it. Is that a point for me? Attendances will improve when the team gets more points. yes some will stay away until RL is gone and that is their right, but the majority of saints fans go to watch the team and so with an improvement then they will return.Not in 10's of 1000's but they will come back. We now have to keep the level of performance to keep them coming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyFartPants Posted 4 March, 2009 Share Posted 4 March, 2009 This is getting so boring now. If there isn't a love in between 1962Onwards and Gingeletiss congratualting each other on "great posts" all the time, then we get (quite literally now) point scoring between Ginge and Nick. One of them states he is 55 and the other 49 yet they come across as two bloody kids. You have different opinions so either accept that or can we organise a charity boxing fight for Comic Relief between you both? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottery st mary Posted 4 March, 2009 Share Posted 4 March, 2009 Well at least now we are winning games the real Saints fans are happy..Like me..And 1965 Come to think of it Lowey and his Luvvies are hopefully happy, even if Rupert can't take the credit and must remain in his office counting the pennies from his piggy bank. But to be fair it is nice.. When we are happy, even the non Saints supporters.. cause at least Wotte was eventually allowed to get on with it and The Director of Football was ordered to leave well alone..We might have a small chance at last..I am a lot happier now. Well done Saints and good on you Mr Wotte..For now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 4 March, 2009 Share Posted 4 March, 2009 This is getting so boring now. If there isn't a love in between 1962Onwards and Gingeletiss congratualting each other on "great posts" all the time, then we get (quite literally now) point scoring between Ginge and Nick. One of them states he is 55 and the other 49 yet they come across as two bloody kids. You have different opinions so either accept that or can we organise a charity boxing fight for Comic Relief between you both? How does the point scoring go on that? Ginge was only teasing with his pointscoring, he has a sense of humour you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyFartPants Posted 4 March, 2009 Share Posted 4 March, 2009 How does the point scoring go on that? Ginge was only teasing with his pointscoring, he has a sense of humour you know. He hides it well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 4 March, 2009 Share Posted 4 March, 2009 He hides it well.when are you moving down to Salisbury then? I live in the area now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyFartPants Posted 4 March, 2009 Share Posted 4 March, 2009 when are you moving down to Salisbury then? I live in the area now. How bizarre. I found out some news today. My security clearance should be done by the end of the week and a start date soon to follow. They need someone ASAP and that suits me too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 4 March, 2009 Share Posted 4 March, 2009 How bizarre. I found out some news today. My security clearance should be done by the end of the week and a start date soon to follow. They need someone ASAP and that suits me too.Land command HQ ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 4 March, 2009 Share Posted 4 March, 2009 It's probable that Lowe has been stopped from interfering in the football side. Hardly his success, more the success of those reining him in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 4 March, 2009 Share Posted 4 March, 2009 Maybe the protests had more effect than some might believe;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintwarwick Posted 4 March, 2009 Share Posted 4 March, 2009 Is that a point for me? Attendances will improve when the team gets more points. yes some will stay away until RL is gone and that is their right, but the majority of saints fans go to watch the team and so with an improvement then they will return.Not in 10's of 1000's but they will come back. We now have to keep the level of performance to keep them coming. As was proved after the win against PNE (14,790), the Cardiff game attracted 18,526. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan The Flames Posted 4 March, 2009 Share Posted 4 March, 2009 How bizarre. I found out some news today. My security clearance should be done by the end of the week and a start date soon to follow. They need someone ASAP and that suits me too. is that lag slang for parole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan The Flames Posted 4 March, 2009 Share Posted 4 March, 2009 Its obvious - Lowe WANTED us to fail - must be really disappointed we won three on the bounce if you ask me...... ;-) Come on Frank, no one has said that on this thread. Although he does a very good impersonation of someone who does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan The Flames Posted 4 March, 2009 Share Posted 4 March, 2009 Choosing JP over Wotte was a mistake and I doubt there is anyone who will think otherwise so no argument there. Can even go as far as saying dropping Pearson was the 1st mistake but mistakes are not just made by Lowe now are they? Talent is in the squad but with the finances almost ruined decissions were made to make sure we would still have a club by the end of the season. Like it or not costs had to be cut to get the overspending back on track. I wouldnt say Rupes turned us into relegation candidates either considering we survived by 20 mins last season. How with a weekend team and new set up we would sufddenly be any better than last season I will never know. Relegation sure did cost us millions but I dont see how Rupes planned or wanted that to happen? To try and avoid relegation Rupes brought in Redcrap who in many peoples eyes was the best choice available to get us out of the sheyte. He even added to the team that not long before reached the highest league position and an FA Cup final and we still went down. Yet its all down to Lowe? His businessman skills can be debated and some would argue that we stayed up allot longer than anyone expected and we actually got better for some of the time while improving our squad and facilities beyond anything we had dreamed before. We wernt in the red in that time either and all debt was agreed and managable debt. No overdraft or spending beyond our means. Unlike what followed after Rupes was given the boot I might add. Since he has come back we have again added to the squad and we are still not in administration and our overdraft has come down by around 2mil. while gates have fallen to the same low's as last season. If the gates increase no doubt next season will look a little better in terms of finances but Rupes has set out our budgets and is sticking to them by all accounts. Something that others failed to do. Yes i want him out but I want someone in that can do better. That someone hasnt shown up yet. In response to your post, talent was in the squad but Lowe choose to not play them because he believed we would walked the league with our kids, the finances was a ploy to use the kids. We were quite often relegation candidates under Lowe before he left and since he came back we are again. If we survive this season we can then categorically state that Lowes policy the first half of the season almost got us relegated. Lowe didn’t spend in Jan the relegation season, he didn’t plan properly to stay up. This is my own theory but I think Lowe wasn’t bothered that we went down, because (in this theory only, I have no evidence) he thought we would come straight back up. The way the contracts were written (which was his biggest mistake in my opinion) the parachute cash, full house to watch a promotion chasing side and the continued support of the sponsors and the club would not be any worse of cash wise. He had to add to the team to replace all those players that left. Our highest position was not 7th, life before the premiership remember. There is plenty of space in the top flight for medium size teams like the Saints and there is no reason why we could not have stayed there a lot longer. The reason we got relegated was because Lowe gambled that we had sufficient strength to stay up. He got it wrong and he was paid a decent wage to get it right. We needed to strengthen but Lowe was too prudent and it cost us a lot more money than it saved. We didn’t have a large overdraft because we sold players along the way, which is a legitimate way for a club our size to balance the books. It was not the super financial skills of Lowe that kept us going but the family silver ware; of which Lowe managed to maximise their value, which is credit to him. When we came down it was imho correct to throw money at it to go back up, but after the gamble failed and the family silver ware had run out the overdraft built up, it was not mismanagement. That’s how I see it, it’s not so cut and dry as Lowe period good non Lowe period bad. Also I’m not saying Lowe mismanaged the club he managed the club very averagely. But I find it hard to swallow that some people will forgive Lowe his gamble but slaughter the others for theirs and yet both of them almost pulled it of. But which failure has been more damaging, in my opinion that is Lowes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 4 March, 2009 Share Posted 4 March, 2009 In response to your post, talent was in the squad but Lowe choose to not play them because he believed we would walked the league with our kids, the finances was a ploy to use the kids. We were quite often relegation candidates under Lowe before he left and since he came back we are again. If we survive this season we can then categorically state that Lowes policy the first half of the season almost got us relegated. Lowe didn’t spend in Jan the relegation season, he didn’t plan properly to stay up. This is my own theory but I think Lowe wasn’t bothered that we went down, because (in this theory only, I have no evidence) he thought we would come straight back up. The way the contracts were written (which was his biggest mistake in my opinion) the parachute cash, full house to watch a promotion chasing side and the continued support of the sponsors and the club would not be any worse of cash wise. He had to add to the team to replace all those players that left. Our highest position was not 7th, life before the premiership remember. There is plenty of space in the top flight for medium size teams like the Saints and there is no reason why we could not have stayed there a lot longer. The reason we got relegated was because Lowe gambled that we had sufficient strength to stay up. He got it wrong and he was paid a decent wage to get it right. We needed to strengthen but Lowe was too prudent and it cost us a lot more money than it saved. We didn’t have a large overdraft because we sold players along the way, which is a legitimate way for a club our size to balance the books. It was not the super financial skills of Lowe that kept us going but the family silver ware; of which Lowe managed to maximise their value, which is credit to him. When we came down it was imho correct to throw money at it to go back up, but after the gamble failed and the family silver ware had run out the overdraft built up, it was not mismanagement. That’s how I see it, it’s not so cut and dry as Lowe period good non Lowe period bad. Also I’m not saying Lowe mismanaged the club he managed the club very averagely. But I find it hard to swallow that some people will forgive Lowe his gamble but slaughter the others for theirs and yet both of them almost pulled it of. But which failure has been more damaging, in my opinion that is Lowes. a shell in nut............IMO. The whole post tells the truth, especially the bit highlighted in red. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
team-saint Posted 4 March, 2009 Share Posted 4 March, 2009 why has this dude been banned?? all he was saying is that we should have been challenging higher up the table from the start of the season. because of our underachievement last season we think our players that remain are worse than they are. they are really not and at the start of the season we had a squad capable of getting higher in the league. if thomas hadn't have got injured and we bought a right back and perhaps another centre back then we should have realistically been aiming for the play-offs. although most of us think poortvliet was rubbish, i think he was actually even worse than most people here think. without the experiment the players we had would have done better. the reason skacel, euell, saga and john were out of favour is that jan wanted just to have the youngsters, he said it himself. that is why we struggled, because the manager picked crap teams and crap players. how do you think john felt about being not picked behind mcgoldrick, pekhart and robertson? yes lowe was looking to loan higher earners, but john started just one or two games in the first 2 months and skacel and euell were just dropped from the team because poortvliet didn't rate them. in summary we underachieved again. as alpine says, the guy has a perfectly good point. and yet because his post contains the word lowe the usual dickheads come along and start saying pointless, childish etc. anyone who calls anyone else childish because they don't have the same opinion is a ****. we are all happy that we have won 3 games in a row of course, but that doesn't mean an end to criticism. yes part of the post was lowe bashing which was a bit random but its a good point about where we would be now if we had been managed properly all season, and after all it is lowe who picked poortvliet. the only person i can see point scoring is son of bob :mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 5 March, 2009 Share Posted 5 March, 2009 When you can see that he has ****ed up this season royally. Turned us into relegation candidates,when it is quite obvious that we have enough talent in the squad to at least have challenged for the play-offs. Having cost us christ-knows how many millions with relegation. He now costs us the chance of god-knows how many more millions from promotion. And some would have us believe he is great businessman with financial prudence and acumem. I dont understand why this post has illicited so much abuse. He is SPOT ON. If every game we had put out our full-strength team, players in correct positions, decent tactics appropriate for this league, we would be near challenging for a play-off spot. Look no further than the turnaround in the last 3 games as evidence, FFS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 5 March, 2009 Share Posted 5 March, 2009 He indeed does have a very good point, because the recent mini revivial under Wotte just goes to show what might have been possibe had we gone down the more "traditional" route from the first game of the season, as opposed to some Revolutionary Set Up playing Total Football. Rather than being embroiled in a relegation battle, we could have had many more wins under our belt, dare I say many more bums on seats and then arguably much more wonga coming in, with maybe even the possibility of strengthening the team in the January window to push on even further. A Virtuous circle as opposed to the viscous one under Poortvliet. If Wotte keeps us up, then arguably our form will have to be akin to mid table stuff (if not higher). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 5 March, 2009 Share Posted 5 March, 2009 How many times have we read after a defeat this season about how close it was, that we didnt deserve to lose, from the supporters of The Revolution ? Now ask yourselves how many of those "narrow & unlucky" defeats would have been draws or wins without a shiiit-for-brains manager and Chairman ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 5 March, 2009 Share Posted 5 March, 2009 In response to your post, talent was in the squad but Lowe choose to not play them because he believed we would walked the league with our kids, the finances was a ploy to use the kids. We were quite often relegation candidates under Lowe before he left and since he came back we are again. If we survive this season we can then categorically state that Lowes policy the first half of the season almost got us relegated. Lowe didn’t spend in Jan the relegation season, he didn’t plan properly to stay up. This is my own theory but I think Lowe wasn’t bothered that we went down, because (in this theory only, I have no evidence) he thought we would come straight back up. The way the contracts were written (which was his biggest mistake in my opinion) the parachute cash, full house to watch a promotion chasing side and the continued support of the sponsors and the club would not be any worse of cash wise. He had to add to the team to replace all those players that left. Our highest position was not 7th, life before the premiership remember. There is plenty of space in the top flight for medium size teams like the Saints and there is no reason why we could not have stayed there a lot longer. The reason we got relegated was because Lowe gambled that we had sufficient strength to stay up. He got it wrong and he was paid a decent wage to get it right. We needed to strengthen but Lowe was too prudent and it cost us a lot more money than it saved. We didn’t have a large overdraft because we sold players along the way, which is a legitimate way for a club our size to balance the books. It was not the super financial skills of Lowe that kept us going but the family silver ware; of which Lowe managed to maximise their value, which is credit to him. When we came down it was imho correct to throw money at it to go back up, but after the gamble failed and the family silver ware had run out the overdraft built up, it was not mismanagement. That’s how I see it, it’s not so cut and dry as Lowe period good non Lowe period bad. Also I’m not saying Lowe mismanaged the club he managed the club very averagely. But I find it hard to swallow that some people will forgive Lowe his gamble but slaughter the others for theirs and yet both of them almost pulled it of. But which failure has been more damaging, in my opinion that is Lowes. I understand where your coming from but cant agree on all of it. You must have seen the accounts through the last few years as they get released for all to see. Its quite obvious that our finances are in a mess so to say that our high earners were not played because Lowe thought the kids could do better is ridiculas. I agree that he probably thought they were good enough to keep us out of trouble and he was wrong but a big part of that must come down to the management combined with the inexperience. But to ignore the state of the finances is ignoring 1 of the biggest facts we actually have. We were relegation candidates many years while Lowe was here and also many years before that. I think we have only really had 2 purple patches in our existance. (well what I know of it anyway but hands up if I am wrong) Some of the years I think we were relegation candidates by the pundits for a laugh rather than what the pundits thought we could actually achieve but for years we enjoyed beating the odds and doing OK for ourselves some of the time and escaping the rest. Not all of those times can be put down to Lowe though can they? And besides over the years did things not progresivly get better untill they went t1ts up at the end? Did we really not spend in the relegation season? And why not if thats true? I remember Redcrapp bringing in a few faces but I also remember a majority of that team reaching the highest prem position and an FA Cup final not long before so it could be suggested that they should be doing allot better. I dont think Rupes wasnt bothered that we went down but I agree with you in that he probably thought we would bounce straight back up. He maybe even planned to be down for a season and to bounce back up the season after. The mistake IMO was not getting rid of dead wood that had been collected by the various managers over the years as that clogged up our squad and wage bill with crocked players and old timers. But now is the time when the changes wernt happening that much on the pich, but in the board room which like it or not was a huge distraction to anything that could be tried on the pitch. I dont put our troubles down to the board room battles but I dont think any of it helped us at all. Look where we are now? Fighting to stay in the CCC with the same bloody guy back in charge!!!! Its like we had a trip on the merry-go-round for nothing. The highest position I was talking about was in the prem and not before the prem but it was the highest position many of us had seen and comparing teams of today to teams of way back when I would say 7th in the prem for a team of our standing was bloody good going and is nothing to be sniffed at. I agree that there should have been no reason why we couldnt have stayed up as IMO we had a stronger team than many of the survival teams we had in the past. But again you say Lowe didnt strengthen but I think we did (or at least tried) How mnay managers have we had that have not brought any new players in? Either on loan or on contract? the problem IMO was having the wrong managers and not clearing out the dead wood again to allow for new blood. I think for a while we had one of the largest squads in the prem and over half of them couldnt get a game because they were either injured or p155 poor. Rupes wanted the manager to look inside the club for future prospects rather than pay a fortune for more has beens and sick notes. looking at past signings its not hard to understand why. Redcrapp wasnt the right manager to apply this philosophy as we saw when he threw a cup game by chucking a load of kids in with what seemed like no real instructions. (something that JP seemed to follow on from) Wotte on the other hand is going for a better mix of the kids and experience and it is looking like its working so far. So while Rupes was in charge and yes he got many things wrong IMO the blame gets spread around all over the place while Rupes holds the responsability for it all. There has been mismanagement while Rupes was out and that cant be ignored just the same as Rupes mismanagment cant be. Although I can iunderstand why both sets of missmanagement happened and I dont go waving my finger at any of them because of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 5 March, 2009 Share Posted 5 March, 2009 why has this dude been banned?? all he was saying is that we should have been challenging higher up the table from the start of the season. because of our underachievement last season we think our players that remain are worse than they are. they are really not and at the start of the season we had a squad capable of getting higher in the league. if thomas hadn't have got injured and we bought a right back and perhaps another centre back then we should have realistically been aiming for the play-offs. although most of us think poortvliet was rubbish, i think he was actually even worse than most people here think. without the experiment the players we had would have done better. the reason skacel, euell, saga and john were out of favour is that jan wanted just to have the youngsters, he said it himself. that is why we struggled, because the manager picked crap teams and crap players. how do you think john felt about being not picked behind mcgoldrick, pekhart and robertson? yes lowe was looking to loan higher earners, but john started just one or two games in the first 2 months and skacel and euell were just dropped from the team because poortvliet didn't rate them. in summary we underachieved again. as alpine says, the guy has a perfectly good point. and yet because his post contains the word lowe the usual dickheads come along and start saying pointless, childish etc. anyone who calls anyone else childish because they don't have the same opinion is a ****. we are all happy that we have won 3 games in a row of course, but that doesn't mean an end to criticism. yes part of the post was lowe bashing which was a bit random but its a good point about where we would be now if we had been managed properly all season, and after all it is lowe who picked poortvliet. the only person i can see point scoring is son of bob :mad: His original point was fair enough and could have been a thread that we all talked about like adults. Like this thread is now TBH. But his wording baited some who turned the thread into a bit of name calling and the thread got closed. it happened time and again with everyone getting warned. the one who got banned was the only one who carried on name calling and baiting long after the warnings had been made. he wasnt banned for making a point that was against Lowe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 5 March, 2009 Share Posted 5 March, 2009 No....he was banned for speaking out, and saying what we all see on here every day. FFS........some seem to get away with literary murder, but hey, if your face fits etc etc etc. I reported the same guy to two Administrators, and guess what............yeh!!, he was having a go at 1965. Shock horror!!!!!!. I'm all for a bit of banter, even nastiness, it can be a cruel world, but one individual in particular, has made being nasty an art form on here. Even when taking the advice given:roll: and putting him on the ignore list, you still see his nasty quips, because others quote him. So I guess I'm saying.........bring back 1965. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 5 March, 2009 Share Posted 5 March, 2009 No....he was banned for speaking out, and saying what we all see on here every day. FFS........some seem to get away with literary murder, but hey, if your face fits etc etc etc. I reported the same guy to two Administrators, and guess what............yeh!!, he was having a go at 1965. Shock horror!!!!!!. I'm all for a bit of banter, even nastiness, it can be a cruel world, but one individual in particular, has made being nasty an art form on here. Even when taking the advice given:roll: and putting him on the ignore list, you still see his nasty quips, because others quote him. So I guess I'm saying.........bring back 1965. I didnt bother reporting anyone but from both sides it was getting silly but look back and you will see one side stopped. I guess they got warned by Admin and listened. 1965 didnt and carried on, even goading the admin into an argument. He then came up with a thread that started off well and soon decended into 1965 name calling and shouting his mouth off again. Thats not speaking out, its shouting down anyone who dares to disagree with you. I disagree with most of your views but I dont insult you and shout you down, i argue my case and you do the same. We are both still here with oposing views and I know I havent been warned for anything either. 1956 was out of order and wouldnt calm it down so ended up getting banned. We dont know if he sent PM's either which could also be the route of any banning. IMO he didnt get the boot for speaking out, but for insulting and prevoking fights with anyone that had a differeng opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 5 March, 2009 Share Posted 5 March, 2009 I dont understand why this post has illicited so much abuse. He is SPOT ON. If every game we had put out our full-strength team, players in correct positions, decent tactics appropriate for this league, we would be near challenging for a play-off spot. Look no further than the turnaround in the last 3 games as evidence, FFS. It wasn't this post that resulted in the ban Alpine and you and i know that. It was what followed from 1965 that sealed his fate with his pram being rapidly emptied. Nothing wrong in having strident opinions but you can't dish out the abuse and accusations and not expect reaction in return or be informed by the mods to cool it occassionally as without them, like it or loathe it there is no forum (like it or loathe it) 1965 has a point but hasn't the same occured at Derby and Forest to a lesser degree and the opposite at Norwich and Watford and why other than patience has Doncaster suddenly turned it around? It doesn't necessarily have to be a constant Lowe bashing. A lot of the innuendo stems from Strachan's book - a one sided view from a somewhat off the wall Scot. If I was Duncan I would be offering to ghost write Lowe's autobiography as that is sure to be a compelling read about the recent history of this club and add some balance to the story. Perhaps that's why he has been so quiet. Nick Hornby said 'The natural state of the football fan is bitter disappointment. no matter what the score'. Unfortunately, 1965 and a few others take this concept to an entirely lower level and as a result the forum has become a parody of a place for fans to discuss their club and more for would be weasley Ian Hislop types to refine their one upmanship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyFartPants Posted 5 March, 2009 Share Posted 5 March, 2009 I would rather have 1965Onwards here than not here. If only for his opposing opinions. Both he and Gingeletiss are very outspoken, and I realise I am as well, but I think you need to notice it in yourself to know when to draw the line. If you don't see it in yourself then you tend to close your eyes to all the rude and nasty comments you make, yet bleat about the ones that are aimed back at you, which is slightly warped. But as I said, I would rather have him back on here as he brings a lot to the debate and does make me chuckle sometimes with his OTT passion for kicking a bag of plastic around the grass. It takes all types and I will miss the old knacker to be fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 5 March, 2009 Share Posted 5 March, 2009 I would rather have 1965Onwards here than not here. If only for his opposing opinions. Both he and Gingeletiss are very outspoken, and I realise I am as well, but I think you need to notice it in yourself to know when to draw the line. If you don't see it in yourself then you tend to close your eyes to all the rude and nasty comments you make, yet bleat about the ones that are aimed back at you, which is slightly warped. But as I said, I would rather have him back on here as he brings a lot to the debate and does make me chuckle sometimes with his OTT passion for kicking a bag of plastic around the grass. It takes all types and I will miss the old knacker to be fair. I think you push it to the line a fair few times but wind your neck in before it goes too too far. Maybe its down to you and 1 or two others that 1965 lost it and went all the way to a banning? like you say though, if you dont undersand that what you are saying is over the line then you wont know when to wind it back.e This place would be boring if we all thought the same though so hopefully 1965 has just got a short ban. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 5 March, 2009 Share Posted 5 March, 2009 Lowe is a cancer. Simple. Sorry, its a nasty phrase, we all know someone who we've lost through it, but there is no better way of describing the effect he has on Southampton Football Club. He has been eating away at it since he arrived and he has to go. FOR GOOD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 5 March, 2009 Share Posted 5 March, 2009 Lowe is a cancer. Simple. Sorry, its a nasty phrase, we all know someone who we've lost through it, but there is no better way of describing the effect he has on Southampton Football Club. He has been eating away at it since he arrived and he has to go. FOR GOOD. Ive lost 3 people in the past year to that and its not something I compare Lowe with thanks very much. Its a fuking football club. reality check needed IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 5 March, 2009 Share Posted 5 March, 2009 Lowe is a cancer. Simple. Sorry, its a nasty phrase, we all know someone who we've lost through it, but there is no better way of describing the effect he has on Southampton Football Club. He has been eating away at it since he arrived and he has to go. FOR GOOD. Robbie I would ask you change your wording. There are people on both sides of this arguement that that word offends greatly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 5 March, 2009 Share Posted 5 March, 2009 Robbie I would ask you change your wording. There are people on both sides of this arguement that that word offends greatly. It doesn't offend me - i suspect those "offended" are only "offended" for political reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 5 March, 2009 Share Posted 5 March, 2009 It doesn't offend me - i suspect those "offended" are only "offended" for political reasons.Thats fine Stanley but I suspect you should respect posters on here who do find it very offensive. I myself do not take it so bad but I think wording like that does inflame some. Its not my board and so Robbie can word things as he likes I just think out of consideration it may be best not to use it. That is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oz Posted 5 March, 2009 Share Posted 5 March, 2009 woote/lowe/wilde all OUT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 5 March, 2009 Share Posted 5 March, 2009 It doesn't offend me - i suspect those "offended" are only "offended" for political reasons. As I said above, its got F all to do with political reasons. No matter how bad things are at a football club it should never be compared IMO to something which has taken a mum away from 4 kids youngest being 2 years old, another mum taken away from 4 year old twins and a good lady in her 20's. I wont fall out with anyone over it but I dont think that choice of words has any place in discribing anyone associated with any football club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
londonsaint1604 Posted 5 March, 2009 Share Posted 5 March, 2009 woote/lowe/wilde all OUT! If that's supposed to say 'wotte' then you don't have a ****ing clue mate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
londonsaint1604 Posted 5 March, 2009 Share Posted 5 March, 2009 Ive lost 3 people in the past year to that and its not something I compare Lowe with thanks very much. Its a fuking football club. reality check needed IMO Well said, it's pathetic how worked up some people seem to get over rupert lowe. It's really not healthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintwarwick Posted 5 March, 2009 Share Posted 5 March, 2009 Lowe is a cancer. Simple. Sorry, its a nasty phrase, we all know someone who we've lost through it, but there is no better way of describing the effect he has on Southampton Football Club. He has been eating away at it since he arrived and he has to go. FOR GOOD. It doesn't offend me - i suspect those "offended" are only "offended" for political reasons. It offends me, cancer kills people and Lowe is not killing people so he should choose his wording more carefully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 5 March, 2009 Share Posted 5 March, 2009 It offends me, cancer kills people and Lowe is not killing people so he should choose his wording more carefully. Whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintwarwick Posted 5 March, 2009 Share Posted 5 March, 2009 Whatever. Let's hope it doesn't effect one of your family eh. 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