Fans 'Parliament Launch

[Frank's cousin]

Or if you head isnt full of "This fence post I am sitting on feels really good up my arse, but I must pretend I am not attention seeking and am really interested in being balanced" tedious ramblings.

 

You really are a comedy genius Alpine.... I am sure you never get criticised for providing too much 'length' to Stanley... ;-)

 

The sad and pathetic thing is that you both know its has NOTHING to do with length and merely because you disagree with the content - you never seem to criticise the length of those posts that slag Lowe,Wilde or bend over and bite the pillow for Mr Crouch.... thankfully most posters are armed with enough intelligence to spot this inconsistency have learned to ignore your insults....

[70's Mike]

Thing is, NOt strichtly true at the time, MW wanted to be on the board and also for Lowe to split the executive CEO role from that of the chair - Lowe met with Wilde after he was making encouraging signals of 'evolution' not revolution' - Lowe refused to split the role (thus not allowing Wilde in as Chairman? - we are led to understand) which triggered the EGM. Crouch initially wanted to go with whoever would guarrantee him a place in the Directors Box...

 

Had Wilde and Lowe got together initially? impossible to say how it would have panned out, we would not have spent anywhere near 7.5 mil that year on the 'word' that investors were waiting in the wings....

 

so how is it not strictly true

they wanted to carry on exactly the same, ignoring someone who owned or controlled 16% plus of the share capital,

[OldNick]

did he have that attitude in the early days or did that develop because he was ignored ' date=' as a player, by the cabal that had run SLH since 1997.[/quote']

 

I dont understand what you mean by that Mike. MW came in with a hostile mantra of ridding the club of RL. I dont think that is a way of building bridges and also it would haveb een difficult for him to do so anyway as he had a large following of supporters who Expected him to get rid of Lowe.

[SaintRobbie]

i understand fans have no faith in RL's financial nous but I myself have to a degree.

I think MW let us down when he first rode into town, at that stage RL was cutting costs and getting us sound before putting us in a position to push.I expect many will laugh at that but it is how I see it.

Very few are privy to the 'Real' situation but I suspect MW realised he had to act to save his investment and the club that was on the precipice.

I agree we are close to it again due to RL foolishly keeping Jan on for 4-5 games too long.If we stay up we will strengthen again.As I have put before RL allegedly has a 3 year plan, year 1 to stabilise year 2 to consolidate and year 3 to push again for the PL.

 

There's a problem here Nick. I don't agree with you on the bold bit for one reason - if we appointed a CEO and sacked Lowe there is no reason why financially things would change. In fact, appointing a man perceived as being 'neutral ' to run the club (err plc I mean) finances may actually improve the situation as Lowe's removal will attract some fans back even if Lowe's 3 year plan continues! Its about confidence and optimism - there is generally neither in Lowe.

 

Lowe's 3 year plan I assume was:

 

Year 1. Stabilise. Remain in CCC, reduce wage bill by using super home bred talented cheap youth and reinforce in the summer.

 

Year 2. Consolidate towards mid table, using now experienced youth and add reinforcement.

 

Year 3. Reinforce and push for playoffs and promotion.

 

YEAR 1 has FAILED. Youth plan has failed - and even if we stay up we can expect alot of our best men to leave in the summer. We are unlikely to therefore consolidate. Plan is therefore, at best, back to Year 1 again anyway. However, if (when) we relegate, what next? - his plan is not just delayed a year but destroyed and with a stripped team of kids and exodus of decent players in the summer will have to become:

 

Year 1 (09/10): Stabilise in League 1, Year 2: Consolidate in League 1 Year 3: Push for promotion to CCC.

 

So Lowe's decision-making has already put us back one year and possibly a further 3-4 on top of his PL push plan if we relegate.

 

Oh dear. 3 year plan? Failed already - at best its now a 4 year plan, at worse a 7 year plan.

 

Can you see now why Lowe is a disaster?

[70's Mike]

I dont understand what you mean by that Mike. MW came in with a hostile mantra of ridding the club of RL. I dont think that is a way of building bridges and also it would haveb een difficult for him to do so anyway as he had a large following of supporters who Expected him to get rid of Lowe.

 

 

my point is did he have that hostile attitude from day one or did it develop because of the boards attitude to him.

the board, imo, made little attempt to work with him and pushed him down the egm route

[Frank's cousin]

so how is it not strictly true

they wanted to carry on exactly the same, ignoring someone who owned or controlled 16% plus of the share capital,

 

Sorry, I see what you meant now... We wont be privy to what was said between Lowe and Wilde during thiose pre EGM meetings though, what demands Wilde had for support etc, nor are we aware of what Crouch would have wanted to side with Lowe - we have just made assumptions thats all, because naturally as Wilde and Crouch teamed up, it MUST be because of Lowe, rather than their demands being unreasonable? I dont know...Because I was not privy to these conversations, so just trying to point out that it 'could' have been different to how we WANT to believe it went. It is a bit ironic that now Wilde has exactly what we are led to believe he wanted when he first arrived...

[OldNick]

There's a problem here Nick. I don't agree with you on the bold bit for one reason - if we appointed a CEO and sacked Lowe there is no reason why financially things would change. In fact, appointing a man perceived as being 'neutral ' to run the club (err plc I mean) finances may actually improve the situation as Lowe's removal will attract some fans back even if Lowe's 3 year plan continues! Its about confidence and optimism - there is generally neither in Lowe.

 

Lowe's 3 year plan I assume was:

 

Year 1. Stabilise. Remain in CCC, reduce wage bill by using super home bred talented cheap youth and reinforce in the summer.

 

Year 2. Consolidate towards mid table, using now experienced youth and add reinforcement.

 

Year 3. Reinforce and push for playoffs and promotion.

 

YEAR 1 has FAILED. Youth plan has failed - and even if we stay up we can expect alot of our best men to leave in the summer. We are unlikely to therefore consolidate. Plan is therefore, at best, back to Year 1 again anyway. However, if (when) we relegate, what next? - his plan is not just delayed a year but destroyed and with a stripped team of kids and exodus of decent players in the summer will have to become:

 

Year 1 (09/10): Stabilise in League 1, Year 2: Consolidate in League 1 Year 3: Push for promotion to CCC.

 

So Lowe's decision-making has already put us back one year and possibly a further 3-4 on top of his PL push plan if we relegate.

 

Oh dear. 3 year plan? Failed already - at best its now a 4 year plan, at worse a 7 year plan.

 

Can you see now why Lowe is a disaster?

Of course that is from your side of the debate.

I could counter that by saying you and all the fans who ran into the arms of the Wilde bunch put us back ten years.others will say that RL put us back 20 years by being relegated.

It is all about where you view things.

I was adamant that the Wilde bunch was not for us and whilst happy for Lowe to go, but only if we got a better alternantive.So far i have seen no evidence we have seen such a person.

[70's Mike]

Sorry' date=' I see what you meant now... We wont be privy to what was said between Lowe and Wilde during thiose pre EGM meetings though, what demands Wilde had for support etc, nor are we aware of what Crouch would have wanted to side with Lowe - we have just made assumptions thats all, because naturally as Wilde and Crouch teamed up, it MUST be because of Lowe, rather than their demands being unreasonable? I dont know...Because I was not privy to these conversations, so just trying to point out that it 'could' have been different to how we WANT to believe it went. It is a bit ironic that now Wilde has exactly what we are led to believe he wanted when he first arrived...[/quote']

 

did crouch not buy his shares after wilde?

actually who cares imo all of them are t*ssers who f*cked up this club because of their child behaviour

[Frank's cousin]

There's a problem here Nick. I don't agree with you on the bold bit for one reason - if we appointed a CEO and sacked Lowe there is no reason why financially things would change. In fact, appointing a man perceived as being 'neutral ' to run the club (err plc I mean) finances may actually improve the situation as Lowe's removal will attract some fans back even if Lowe's 3 year plan continues! Its about confidence and optimism - there is generally neither in Lowe.

 

Dont you see though Robbie that in effect you are saying that its more about Lowe than what he is actually doing ? That, a 'CEO could continue doing what we are now on teh financials'.... Surely you can see that thsi is the wrong way round and it should be about what is done NOT who is doing it? Your way just undermines the credibilty ion your argument because you amke it about personalities.

 

This is the BIGGEST problem we have that divides fans - its become less about about the mistakes and teh actions, and more and more about personalities, and whilst that continues we wont get unity.

 

You will find that 100% of fans will agree that some of Lowes actions were serious errors, on others about 80% etc but you wont get agreement if you focus on the personality rather than his actions.

[um pahars]

I am not sure I follow the rational that means it MUST be crap for Saints' date=' because as I have said before, the only way they GAIN anything either financially or ego wise is if the club is successful and as 99% of the the PLC success or lack of it is as a result of what happens on the pitch, on the field success SHOULD and MUST be a priority for the baord. [/quote']

 

I don't think there is anyone (maybe the one or two nutters again) who fail to understand that the best way for Lowe and/or Wilde to benefit is for the team to be successful (as that is indeed how they will benefit, both financially and emotionally)

 

but

 

what you will find is a great many who disagree that the best way of achieving success is by having them at the helm and making the important decisions.

 

 

Just because the only way for them to benefit is success on the pitch, then it does not automatically translate into them being able to deliver it.

 

In fact, recent tenures have shown the complete opposite, with their involvement being demonstrably unsuccessful.

[um pahars]

I agree we are close to it again due to RL foolishly keeping Jan on for 4-5 games too long.If we stay up we will strengthen again.

 

Many would of course argue that the first 23-24 games were also relevant!!!!!

 

If sticking with Poortvliet for 4-5 games too long was foolish, then I have to say the initial appointment and the 24-28 games was an abject disaster.

[Frank's cousin]

I don't think there is anyone (maybe the one or two nutters again) who fail to understand that the best way for Lowe and/or Wilde to benefit is for the team to be successful (as that is indeed how they will benefit, both financially and emotionally)

 

but

 

what you will find is a great many who disagree that the best way of achieving success is by having them at the helm and making the important decisions.

 

 

Just because the only way for them to benefit is success on the pitch, then it does not automatically translate into them being able to deliver it.

 

In fact, recent tenures have shown the complete opposite, with their involvement being demonstrably unsuccessful.

 

Those are fair points and indeed I have raised them in this thread - cant remember where now - the fact that one of the problems is their mistakes and thus inability to deliver. The obvious answer if they are clever is to bring someone else in who CAN deliver and help them make their money and massage theuir ego through success - but they still believe they are best placed to do this. Whilst they believe that, no amount of protest and rhetoric from fans will shift them, so do we work agaisnts it and in doing so put the club further at risk by witholding more revenue, or do we work with them to at least see us survive financially? Possibly using schemes such as this to present a united voice of constructive dialogue?

 

My point on this thread is driven mostly by the simple fact that we should use this opportunity to FANs benefit, by being wise and selecting those who will be able to garner the respect necessary and gain the appropriate trust to be listended to in the first place and more importantly those behind whom ALL can feel comfortable uniting. That way the influence will come because of the financial muscle the fans hold if united.

[Channon's Sideburns]

Wilde may not give a sh!t about us true, in fact he may only have rejoined the fold for his own interests recognising that they would be best served from the inside - who knows and who cares would be by mind set.... OK so need to explain that one... was a bit flipant.

 

Thing is this, whatever interest Lowe and Wilde have in football is ultimately irrelevent, If as some believe (and I am not one of them true) they are ONLY in this for self interest or ego, I am not sure I follow the rational that means it MUST be crap for Saints, because as I have said before, the only way they GAIN anything either financially or ego wise is if the club is successful and as 99% of the the PLC success or lack of it is as a result of what happens on the pitch, on the field success SHOULD and MUST be a priority for the baord.

 

The problem we have are 1) they are more concerned about this LONG TERM, yet fans are far more interested in season by season which is our right, 2) They have made a series of errors of judgement which has set us back - thats all of them, Lowe, Wilde and Crouch 3) these errors have been compounded by some things just not working out as expected, 4) they have lost the confidence of their customers/fans as a result which means reduced revenues even further.

 

From the clubs perspective this parliament uis all about trying to bring fans back - sure they propbaly dont expect it to be much more than a PR exercise, but thats the clubs perspective - if you believe that fine, you are not naive, and your cynicism is based on previous experience.... BUT its also an opportunity to make it what we the fans want it to be and if there is unity behind it from the majority, its power and influence WILL be serious enough to have an impact with the club.

 

I say GRASP it, lets use it as an opportunitty to heal wounds and unite behind what we have in common, NOT where we disagree and thus present a very strong financial incentive for the club to listen. BUT if we do want to be taken seriously, we also have to be mature enough to welcome this, and coolheaded enough to engage in constructive dialogue and not just single agendas on personalities. I just think it would be a real opportunity lost as what this potentially is, is only limited by your own expectations, potential cynicism, fan infighting, and refusal to engage in POSITIVE and CONSTRUCTIVE dialogue.

 

Frank, listen I agree with what you are saying - but this is Saints we are talking about.

 

Once Bitten Twice Shy?

 

That will be the thoughts of the majority. Given Wilde's lack of interest in attending the Fans Forums, or the AGM of the PLC, and Lowe's performance there, it is transparently an exercise to appease..they have no intention of taking our views on board - the most glaring evidence is that they want to VET the possible inductees....

 

CHRIST - DO THEY WANT A C.R.B CHECK AS WELL?

 

Perhaps one of the questions raised on the app form will be...

 

Q1234. Do you, or have you, posted on Saints Forever or The Saints Forum in the past? If yes, please state your username so we can see if we want you or not...ta x

 

BTW, I'd gladly take part - just so the foookers don't get it their own way

Edited 19 March, 2009 by Channon's Sideburns
Forgot my pledge for election!

[Mole]

I'd nominate Richard Chorley for the simple reason he's one of the super fans (for want of a better word) that isn't going to brown nose or be hoodwinked by "Mike" and co.

[um pahars]

Those are fair points and indeed I have raised them in this thread - cant remember where now - the fact that one of the problems is their mistakes and thus inability to deliver. The obvious answer if they are clever is to bring someone else in who CAN deliver and help them make their money and massage theuir ego through success - but they still believe they are best placed to do this. Whilst they believe that' date=' no amount of protest and rhetoric from fans will shift them, [b']so do we work agaisnts it and in doing so put the club further at risk by witholding more revenue, [/b]or do we work with them to at least see us survive financially? Possibly using schemes such as this to present a united voice of constructive dialogue?

 

My point on this thread is driven mostly by the simple fact that we should use this opportunity to FANs benefit, by being wise and selecting those who will be able to garner the respect necessary and gain the appropriate trust to be listended to in the first place and more importantly those behind whom ALL can feel comfortable uniting. That way the influence will come because of the financial muscle the fans hold if united.

 

Surely a contradiction as what influence do supporters hold if when they flex their financial muscle, you then criticise them by suggesting they are putting the Club at risk.

 

In addition, I find it difficult to understand the rationale of your constant blaming of the fans for the mire we find ourselves in (and now find it doubly difficult to understand how you accept they have financial muscle, yet they shouldn't use it).

 

If a tranche of fans have walked away from the Club, then ultimatley that is their choice and considering what they have been offered as entertainment in return for their hard earned dosh, then I can understand why many have turned away. It's not something unique to us, as despite one or two isolated cases, attendances would have fallen at similar clubs in similar circumstances.

 

Rather than moan or criticise supporters, we should be looking at the crass management that has allowed this Club to fall so far. A classic case of looking at, and blaming the sympton, as opposed to identifying and rectifying the underlying cause.

 

The supporters of this Club (whether they still go or not) have not put this Club at risk, it is the failed policies of those entrusted to run it in recent years that have ensured that has happened.

 

As for this particular initiative, then I have to say it falls down on almost every angle that I try to look at it from.

[OldNick]

Many would of course argue that the first 23-24 games were also relevant!!!!!

 

If sticking with Poortvliet for 4-5 games too long was foolish, then I have to say the initial appointment and the 24-28 games was an abject disaster.

but that was not necessarily the case Ump.We were clear of the relegation places and it was only our home form that kept us from being easily mid table. The costs were being cut and we were on course.RL did not act quickly enough when the wheels started to come off and it was fairly obvious that we needed to be tip top when we had the Donny and Forest games looming.

In principle i could see what was trying to be achieved, we wrere mightily close to it coming off.2or 3 home wins under Jan and things would have looked better.It still may have failed but the pressure would have been less.I do accept that jan was not good enough as management material though

[Frank's cousin]

surely a contradiction as what influence do supporters hold if when they flex their financial muscle, you then criticise them by suggesting they are putting the club at risk.

 

FC: Where did i criticise? I merely pointed out a fact - teh less people go the more at risk the club is financially - that is not a criticism its a fact.

 

In addition, i find it difficult to understand the rationale of your constant blaming of the fans for the mire we find ourselves in (and now find it doubly difficult to understand how you accept they have financial muscle, yet they shouldn't use it).

 

 

FC: Where have i blamed any fans for the mire? - i have merely stated that by witholding revenue eg. Not atteding we do place further financial pressure on the club - again a fact

 

there is also a big difference between simply not going and the impact it has on the club, and presenting a united front that could hold clout - which is respected

 

if a tranche of fans have walked away from the club, then ultimatley that is their choice and considering what they have been offered as entertainment in return for their hard earned dosh, then i can understand why many have turned away. It's not something unique to us, as despite one or two isolated cases, attendances would have fallen at similar clubs in similar circumstances.

 

FC: That is quite trrue and quite right it is all about choice and the entertainment has to be better for some - have not mentioned anything about that in this post so not quite sure why you bring it up?

 

Rather than moan or criticise supporters, we should be looking at the crass management that has allowed this club to fall so far. A classic case of looking at, and blaming the sympton, as opposed to identifying and rectifying the underlying cause.

 

FC: Again up you are introducing responses to comments i have not feckin made!!! - where do i moan about fans here? The whole point of this post is to appeal to fans that if you get the selection right that this might be an opportunity to do something positive - surely if anyone should be criticised its those that see it as a joke - cynicism i can understand, but we should at least take it seriously.

 

The supporters of this club (whether they still go or not) have not put this club at risk, it is the failed policies of those entrusted to run it in recent years that have ensured that has happened.

 

FC: That is the cause yes, but because we are in a predicament where our hardearned represents over 65% of the revenue, the fact remains without it, it will fold - whatever the reason, whatever teh club have fecked up and is the reason for the nonattendance is irrelvent as it does not change the cold hard fact that fans do have it within their power to make a difference financially - and its their choice to do so or not - thats not blame or criticism , but a fact.

 

As for this particular initiative, then i have to say it falls down on almost every angle that i try to look at it from.

 

FC: why? You want some uptopian ideal democratic system ? Never work for the reasons we have seen above - too much history and mistrust, no respect - this has to be changed - we either take the opportunity or ignore and ridicule... Your choice, but i suspect that if that is the majority fan choice, then we will be stuck with what we have for a long time to come, because even if lowe is no longer in the boardroom, they wont let go until they have recouped some of the recent losses - to think they will is living in fantasy land

[um pahars]

but that was not necessarily the case Ump.We were clear of the relegation places and it was only our home form that kept us from being easily mid table. The costs were being cut and we were on course.RL did not act quickly enough when the wheels started to come off and it was fairly obvious that we needed to be tip top when we had the Donny and Forest games looming.

In principle i could see what was trying to be achieved, we wrere mightily close to it coming off.2or 3 home wins under Jan and things would have looked better.It still may have failed but the pressure would have been less.I do accept that jan was not good enough as management material though

 

You must have a poor memory nickh as this is our league positions throughout the first 25 games:

 

18

23

17

20

23

22

20

20

16

20

20

21

22

22

20

21

21

20

20

19

19

20

21

21

21

 

We had been in the relegation spots or thereabouts for almost all of the season.

 

We didn't have a bad run from game 23 or 24 onwards, we had been poor from the off (apart from the odd game where we over achieved)

[Legod Third Coming]

You must have a poor memory nickh as this is our league positions throughout the first 25 games:

 

18

23

17

20

23

22

20

20

16

20

20

21

22

22

20

21

21

20

20

19

19

20

21

21

21

 

We had been in the relegation spots or thereabouts for almost all of the season.

 

We didn't have a bad run from game 23 or 24 onwards, we had been poor from the off (apart from the odd game where we over achieved)

 

We were never 16th surely?

[um pahars]

whatever the reason, whatever teh club have fecked up and is the reason for the nonattendance is irrelvent as it does not change the cold hard fact that fans do have it within their power to make a difference financially - and its their choice to do so or not - thats not blame or criticism , but a fact.

 

But once again you fail to grasp the reality of the situation.

 

To suggest the reason for their non attendance is irrelevant, spectacularly misses the point. Supporters have voted with their feet because what is being served up under the leadership of the current board is poor. It's as simple as that.

 

Of course supporters can make a difference and of course they have a choice, but many will not make a choice that is favourable to the Club unless something changes (be it on or off the pitch). It's head in the sand thinking just to dismiss their reasons for not turning up.

 

We have a hard core of loyal supporters who will turn out come what may, but we have lost many thousands from the middle ground due to the direct and iundirect actions of those in charge.

 

The cause of the missing millions in revenue is not the middle ground supporters who no longer come, but those in charge of the Club who provide them with no reason to come.

 

because even if lowe is no longer in the boardroom' date=' they wont let go until they have recouped some of the recent losses - to think they will is living in fantasy land[/quote']

 

I have no problem with Lowe as a shareholder, ultimately it's a free market and people can invest their money where they like, but what I do have a problme with is Lowe in control of any decision making, as he has spectacularly faile dus in recent years.

[um pahars]

We were never 16th surely?

 

Back to back wins against Donny and Norwich shot us up from 20th to the heady heights of 16th!!!!!!!!

[70's Mike]

Back to back wins against Donny and Norwich shot us up from 20th to the heady heights of 16th!!!!!!!!

 

had a nose bleed that week

[alpine_saint]

So, according to FC, we should all pounce on the bones that Lowe and Wilde throw us, be mighty damned grateful and all rally behind the flag.

 

Superb...

 

Are you related to Neville Chamberlain ?

[SaintRobbie]

Of course that is from your side of the debate.

I could counter that by saying you and all the fans who ran into the arms of the Wilde bunch put us back ten years.others will say that RL put us back 20 years by being relegated.

It is all about where you view things.

I was adamant that the Wilde bunch was not for us and whilst happy for Lowe to go, but only if we got a better alternantive.So far i have seen no evidence we have seen such a person.

 

But it would be irrelevant as its water under the bridge. Lowe is killing this club at the moment not Wilde or Crouch.

 

Any unemployed CEO would be better than Lowe I'm afraid Nick.

[SaintRobbie]

Dont you see though Robbie that in effect you are saying that its more about Lowe than what he is actually doing ? That, a 'CEO could continue doing what we are now on teh financials'.... Surely you can see that thsi is the wrong way round and it should be about what is done NOT who is doing it? Your way just undermines the credibilty ion your argument because you amke it about personalities.

 

This is the BIGGEST problem we have that divides fans - its become less about about the mistakes and teh actions, and more and more about personalities, and whilst that continues we wont get unity.

 

You will find that 100% of fans will agree that some of Lowes actions were serious errors, on others about 80% etc but you wont get agreement if you focus on the personality rather than his actions.

 

No you are wrong IMHO. Because at the top of all teams is a decision-making leader. If that leader loses credibility due to inept decision-making he is usually removed by either those below him or those above him.

 

This is not about personalities its about failed leadership. That happens to be Lowe. Loser and failure... and that is a concrete fact.

 

The fact we are having this discussion about Lowe and we are divided shows that it is a personality that is dividing us as fans - Lowe.

 

 

A CEO would be a better option than nil confidence and nil integrity Mr Lowe - a proven failure and the centre of the disunity of this club. I will reiterate that I share Steve grant's view that we need to sweep out the lot of our boardroom, but its time we made a start with the one who is currently leading this club to League 2. That is I'm afraid - as it always is for a leader - personality driven.

 

A major leap forward would be the removal of Lowe forever.

[SaintRobbie]

You must have a poor memory nickh as this is our league positions throughout the first 25 games:

 

18

23

17

20

23

22

20

20

16

20

20

21

22

22

20

21

21

20

20

19

19

20

21

21

21

 

We had been in the relegation spots or thereabouts for almost all of the season.

 

We didn't have a bad run from game 23 or 24 onwards, we had been poor from the off (apart from the odd game where we over achieved)

 

Blimey has it really been that bad? God.

 

22nd is our lowest position for 49 years Mr Lowe.

[um pahars]

whilst happy for Lowe to go, but only if we got a better alternantive.So far i have seen no evidence we have seen such a person.

 

And why weren't you saying the same when you wanted rid of Poortvliet???

 

I don't remember there being a shortlist of managers in circulation during that period.

 

You were more than happy to suggest Poortvliet should be sacked without being told who was going to replace him.

 

What is the difference between suggesting a manager should be sacked without knowing who the replacement is and suggesting we should trade in one CEO for another????

[OldNick]

We were never 16th surely?

As I stated if we had won a few more home games we would have been midtable. When I think it was Forest we had the chnace to be 10 points clear.Our away form was I think 2nd or 3rd best in the league it was the home form that did us in.

At one stage a win would have pushed us up the ;league 4 or 5 places.Saying that Jan was the wrong man.If we had Wotte 4-5 games earlier i suggest we would be far better placed now.

[Legod Third Coming]

As I stated if we had won a few more home games we would have been midtable. When I think it was Forest we had the chnace to be 10 points clear.Our away form was I think 2nd or 3rd best in the league it was the home form that did us in.

At one stage a win would have pushed us up the ;league 4 or 5 places.Saying that Jan was the wrong man.If we had Wotte 4-5 games earlier i suggest we would be far better placed now.

 

And what if we had simply remodelled the existing squad with Pearson...

 

No point in ifs and buts, there's a job to be done and it's down to the current management and players to win every game from here on.

 

It's possible. The quality of this league is utter pants this year.

 

It's about time our bloody players and manager started to IMPOSE themselves on teams and dictate.

 

WE are STILL A MASSIVE club in this league. Let's start to act like it and stop playing the bloody martyr.

 

Send me some boots and I'll kick some of these opponents from here to Blackpool and back!

[aintforever]

As I stated if we had won a few more home games we would have been midtable. When I think it was Forest we had the chnace to be 10 points clear.Our away form was I think 2nd or 3rd best in the league it was the home form that did us in.

At one stage a win would have pushed us up the ;league 4 or 5 places.Saying that Jan was the wrong man.If we had Wotte 4-5 games earlier i suggest we would be far better placed now.

 

Or maybe Wotte's honeymoon period would have just occured a few games earlier and we would be in the same position we are now?

 

The performance against QPR was dog****, no better or worse than under Jan IMO.

[Frank's cousin]

And what if we had simply remodelled the existing squad with Pearson...

 

No point in ifs and buts, there's a job to be done and it's down to the current management and players to win every game from here on.

 

It's possible. The quality of this league is utter pants this year.

 

It's about time our bloody players and manager started to IMPOSE themselves on teams and dictate.

 

WE are STILL A MASSIVE club in this league. Let's start to act like it and stop playing the bloody martyr.

 

Send me some boots and I'll kick some of these opponents from here to Blackpool and back!

 

 

Have to admit, thats a bloody good post, we do seem to be suffering from a huge amout of 'its not fair' syndrome from everyone at the club to us fans - I think its BECAUSE we spent so long in teh top flight, surviving + the odd bit of success, it just seems so hard to take as most current afns have never known teh days of lower league football, and whats worse is that this time around the differences between the top flight and the rest are so dramatically advanced....We need leadership to have this attitude, from teh boardroom, teh amnager, the players and the staff - lets give it some!

[OldNick]

Or maybe Wotte's honeymoon period would have just occured a few games earlier and we would be in the same position we are now?

 

The performance against QPR was dog****, no better or worse than under Jan IMO.

Maybe, but i believe we would be better placed.All opinion of course the same as fans who believe we would be better placed if another had been manager.The results have improved under Wotte. As for the QPR game I wasnt there and so cant judge how bad we were. Were you not at the Coventry Burnley games last season? They were dire as well as many this season.

[alpine_saint]

Have to admit' date=' thats a bloody good post, we do seem to be suffering from a huge amout of 'its not fair' syndrome from everyone at the club to us fans - I think its BECAUSE we spent so long in teh top flight, surviving + the odd bit of success, it just seems so hard to take as most current afns have never known teh days of lower league football, and whats worse is that this time around the differences between the top flight and the rest are so dramatically advanced....We need leadership to have this attitude, from teh boardroom, teh amnager, the players and the staff - lets give it some![/quote']

 

What a load of crap.

 

The reason many of the fans are angry is because when one looks at the team last year, the year before and the year before that on paper, when compared to opposition line-ups, there is no f**king way it should have done so badly. That is completely down to off-field management piiss-poor decisions, petty fighting, ego and arrogance.

[Frank's cousin]

What a load of crap.

 

The reason many of the fans are angry is because when one looks at the team last year, the year before and the year before that on paper, when compared to opposition line-ups, there is no f**king way it should have done so badly. That is completely down to off-field management piiss-poor decisions, petty fighting, ego and arrogance.

 

HOw do tyou feel when you get out of bed each morning? With so much bitterness, anger, hatred and resentment it must be pretty feckin miserable.... this is FOOTBALL we are talking about remember.

[alpine_saint]

HOw do tyou feel when you get out of bed each morning? With so much bitterness' date=' anger, hatred and resentment it must be pretty feckin miserable.... this is FOOTBALL we are talking about remember.[/quote']

 

Wassamadda, turning to personal attack again because you know bloody well I have just completely debunked your "Its the fans being irrational at fault, poor Rupey is so misunderstood" garbage with the real reasons ?

[Frank's cousin]

Wassamadda, turning to personal attack again because you know bloody well I have just completely debunked your "Its the fans being irrational at fault, poor Rupey is so misunderstood" garbage with the real reasons ?

 

Not at all, you have 'debunked nothing' because you just dont get it - your obssession with Lowe is irritating for sure, but its your outlook that was being criticised here....

[Wes Tender]

Things seem to have strayed a long way off topic here. We've given up thinking objectively about whether the Parliament is a good idea or not and reverted to the usual topics of whether Lowe or somebody else should be chairman, or whether JP or Wotte or Pearson should be manager.

 

I suspect that everything that could be said about this Parliament has already been said and as far as I can see, Frank is the only person making half an effort of defending the proposition. Nearly everybody else either thinks it is a ruse of the board's to pay lip service to our views, or else that it is a complete waste of time.

[Frank's cousin]

Things seem to have strayed a long way off topic here. We've given up thinking objectively about whether the Parliament is a good idea or not and reverted to the usual topics of whether Lowe or somebody else should be chairman, or whether JP or Wotte or Pearson should be manager.

 

I suspect that everything that could be said about this Parliament has already been said and as far as I can see, Frank is the only person making half an effort of defending the proposition. Nearly everybody else either thinks it is a ruse of the board's to pay lip service to our views, or else that it is a complete waste of time.

 

You know me Wes gotta go with the minority view! ;-)

 

Seriously though, its in part because if we want the moral high ground on issues with the club, we have to take these things with good grace and remain respectful for the opportunity, take it and use it to our best possible advantage - it may well be that it achieves nothing, but that does not mean we should not explore every avenue available to us, even if our own cynicism gives it a low chance of success, we should at least give it a chance.

 

I ust get frustrated when its teh same fans complaining that the club ignore fans and dont offer communication, that are the first to snub such things, the trust etc when its offered... A helthy dose of realsim (and some cynicism) is indeed wise given the clubs history of teh PR spin, but that does not mean it should be ridiculed when offered.... we have a chanceto make this waht we want it to be.

[Wes Tender]

.... we have a chanceto make this waht we want it to be.

 

Do we? Or is it really more a case of us having a chance of making it what the club want it to be?

[Channon's Sideburns]

You know me Wes gotta go with the minority view! ;-)

 

Seriously though, its in part because if we want the moral high ground on issues with the club, we have to take these things with good grace and remain respectful for the opportunity, take it and use it to our best possible advantage - it may well be that it achieves nothing, but that does not mean we should not explore every avenue available to us, even if our own cynicism gives it a low chance of success, we should at least give it a chance.

 

I ust get frustrated when its teh same fans complaining that the club ignore fans and dont offer communication, that are the first to snub such things, the trust etc when its offered... A helthy dose of realsim (and some cynicism) is indeed wise given the clubs history of teh PR spin, but that does not mean it should be ridiculed when offered.... we have a chanceto make this waht we want it to be.

 

Serious question then...are you willing to put yourself forward then Frank?

 

Not trying to start an argument, just interested.

 

If you are, from the numbers on here so far, it may be just you and two of those appointed by the club.

 

The 'principle' of such a parliament is sound - it's the foookers behind it all who aren't.

 

Wilde will never be trusted again, nor will Lowe.

 

At least with Lowe you can probably understand that he 'thinks' he knows best, and wouldn't necessarily be behind the idea...my view is that Wilde is driving this, preparing for his exit speech in the summer...

 

'Whilst I am sad to leave the club without completing our full aims, I leave with the knowledge that the Fans Parliament I have introduced will ensure that I can put on record that I ACTUALLY did something upon my return as Football Chairman, apart from making the tea and polishing some shoes'

[Frank's cousin]

Serious question then...are you willing to put yourself forward then Frank?

 

Not trying to start an argument, just interested.

 

If you are, from the numbers on here so far, it may be just you and two of those appointed by the club.

 

The 'principle' of such a parliament is sound - it's the foookers behind it all who aren't.

 

Wilde will never be trusted again, nor will Lowe.

 

At least with Lowe you can probably understand that he 'thinks' he knows best, and wouldn't necessarily be behind the idea...my view is that Wilde is driving this, preparing for his exit speech in the summer...

 

'Whilst I am sad to leave the club without completing our full aims, I leave with the knowledge that the Fans Parliament I have introduced will ensure that I can put on record that I ACTUALLY did something upon my return as Football Chairman, apart from making the tea and polishing some shoes'

 

I will answer that as honestly as I can...seriously.

 

1) I would have no problem taking part in such a thing, but I dont think I would have the backing of several vocal doubters who for some bizarre reason believe I would bend over for Lowe - and I believe for this to work, those chosen/selected need to have at least the backing of the majority or at least if grudging respect of the majority. I have sat on the 'fence' or in Lowes pocket (depending on who you believe) for too long for some - also Wilde might object as I have not exactly been uncritical of him.

 

2) I am honest enough to admit it also appeals to my ego, and yes I do think I can understand all sides and RESPECT all sides, but its more important that those who stand have the respect of the fans, and not sure I qualify on that score given my percieved position.

 

3) Those selected have to represent the views of ALL fans, including thsoe opinions they dont personally agree with - thats the hardest part for anyone and I would struggle if fans demanded a single agenda of boardroom change - which as you see above I have suggested is not the purpose of such a parliament.

 

So yes would not mind doing it, but cant see it happening can you? ;-)

[fos1]

I will answer that as honestly as I can...seriously.

 

1) I would have no problem taking part in such a thing, but I dont think I would have the backing of several vocal doubters who for some bizarre reason believe I would bend over for Lowe - and I believe for this to work, those chosen/selected need to have at least the backing of the majority or at least if grudging respect of the majority. I have sat on

So yes would not mind doing it, but cant see it happening can you? ;-)

 

Frank, I have to say very surprised the you would put yourself in front of Wilde again ( If he had the guts to turn up !!) After your last meeting with him, how can you ever trust this man again ??

[Mole]

Frank, I have to say very surprised the you would put yourself in front of Wilde again ( If he had the guts to turn up !!) After your last meeting with him, how can you ever trust this man again ??

 

Good point. Didn't "Mike" tell Andrew Cowen that the SOS posse wanted him back as chairman?

 

So that's Keith legg used, the Saints Trust used and the SOS posse used. I see no reason for the latest gimic not to follow the usual pattern.

Edited 20 March, 2009 by Mole

[Channon's Sideburns]

Good point. Didn't "Mike" tell Andrew Cowen that the SOS posse wanted him back as chairman?

 

So that's Keith legg used, the Saints Trust used and the SOS posse used. I see no reason for the latest gimic not to follow the usual pattern.

 

Well, that is exactly my thinking on the whole thing.

 

I fully appreciate Frank's explanation - and I can see where he is coming from. But, as he has stated, finding a group of fans who can put forward their representative view is going to be EXTREMELY difficult.

 

In a way it is doomed to fail before it begins - the selection process comes with too many caveats to make it work anyway...given our justified cynical nature towards Monsieur Wilde and his fan-friendly rhetoric - just who will bother?

 

SOS was a prime example of honest fans trying to get some common ground with these jokers - and they got played as well - with the best of intentions.

 

I said it before - this Parliament is a shallow gesture from a shallow board.

 

Works at clubs where there isn't more politics than there is football...

[Frank's cousin]

Frank, I have to say very surprised the you would put yourself in front of Wilde again ( If he had the guts to turn up !!) After your last meeting with him, how can you ever trust this man again ??

 

If anything, once bitten twice shy, sure it was not in hindsight a great experience, but we learned a few things and that hopefully would ensure we are prewarned...however, if we continue in this overall vein of mistrust, how could we hope to ever achieve anything? Sure we all want a board that is made up of those untainted by the last few years, but we are at present stuck with the one we have, so is it not better to try and influence them, rather tahn just sling mud from the outside? Sure this is idealist, and maybe its unrealistic, but dont we have to at least try for the love of this club?

[Frank's cousin]

Good point. Didn't "Mike" tell Andrew Cowen that the SOS posse wanted him back as chairman?

 

So that's Keith legg used, the Saints Trust used and the SOS posse used. I see no reason for the latest gimic not to follow the usual pattern.

 

True, and that is a good point. The thing this time is, there is a healthy degree of cynicism taht the club have to try and work to overcome, not by words but by actions. They key is for thsoe selected to be kept 'honest' by the fan base they represent.

[Mole]

It seems to me that Messrs H & D really think they are the masters of PR and spin. Not a day goes by without some new "leak" or statement designed to further their personal agendas.

 

IMO they seem to have grossly overestimated their PR skills and underestimated the intelligence of their customer base.

 

Their agendas are transparent in the extreme and they have lost all credibility as a result.

 

We need an experienced and financially astute CEO who can get a grip on the finances of the Club and a Chairman commited to the success of SFC. One thing is clear we have neither of these at the moment..

 

Does anyone else find this comment ironic in the extreme?

[Frank's cousin]

Well, that is exactly my thinking on the whole thing.

 

I fully appreciate Frank's explanation - and I can see where he is coming from. But, as he has stated, finding a group of fans who can put forward their representative view is going to be EXTREMELY difficult.

 

In a way it is doomed to fail before it begins - the selection process comes with too many caveats to make it work anyway...given our justified cynical nature towards Monsieur Wilde and his fan-friendly rhetoric - just who will bother?

 

SOS was a prime example of honest fans trying to get some common ground with these jokers - and they got played as well - with the best of intentions.

 

I said it before - this Parliament is a shallow gesture from a shallow board.

 

Works at clubs where there isn't more politics than there is football...

 

I appreciate your perspective and fully understand the concerns - the thing with SOS that made it a farce was that it was clear afterwards that we were being used as a sounding board, by Wilde to guage reaction should Lowe and he return - not necessarily bad, but made so by the preliminary agreemnet of confidentiality, which meant the SOS could not simply be a go between and communicate this with fans for them to make up their own minds. In a way it does not matter if the club were to try and use the parliament as a PR stunt or sounding board because the reps acting for teh fans would be mandated to fully disclose, thus giving the fans a non club spin version for tehir digestion...the way I see it anyway. Naturally, there will always be an element of the club selecting waht it wants out, but that does not stop questiosn going teh other way and a lot can be read into silence as well as answers.

[Mole]

I appreciate your perspective and fully understand the concerns - the thing with SOS that made it a farce was that it was clear afterwards that we were being used as a sounding board' date=' by Wilde to guage reaction should Lowe and he return - not necessarily bad, but made so by the preliminary agreemnet of confidentiality, which meant the SOS could not simply be a go between and communicate this with fans for them to make up their own minds. In a way it does not matter if the club were to try and use the parliament as a PR stunt or sounding board because the reps acting for teh fans would be mandated to fully disclose, thus giving the fans a non club spin version for tehir digestion...the way I see it anyway. Naturally, there will always be an element of the club selecting waht it wants out, but that does not stop questiosn going teh other way and a lot can be read into silence as well as answers.[/quote']

 

To be fair Frank it was obvious you were going to be used BEFORE the meeting.

Edited 20 March, 2009 by Mole

[Frank's cousin]

Does anyone else find this comment ironic in the extreme?

 

I have to say stanley, that in te CEO case, I cant answer as to the success - because 1) I dont know what state the finances were in when Lowe came back and 2) I dont know what state they are in now. If they have significantly improved, then he has been successful, if they have stayed teh same or gotten worse, then he has failed so far. As to teh Chirman (footballclub I presume), well I cant say I have seemn wilde do very much todate, he seems to remain very quiet.....