Jump to content

A big thankyou to those who boycotted


Mole

Recommended Posts

I just remembered another reason Barclays quoted for Lowe's sacking... was it not that he FAILED to attract investment?

 

You're right Jay, can't see that being the case in a million years... and certainly can't see the new owners daring to admit it even if it was true!

 

...and I've forgotten where I am wrong as so far I havent been and you and I both seem to agree on Wotte! :)

 

Just cause you cant see it your self it doesnt mean its not there. ;)

 

And we almost agree on Wotte. I would be fine about him being given a chance to prove himself for this season. But I would also understand if he was replaced. If the take over happens today and the new lot have someone new in mind then there is still plenty of time for a new guy to have the right impact. If the take over faulters and we are still waiting a week before the season starts with half a squad then give him till Xmas.

 

Its not about who brought who in for me so I dont think he should get the boot for that reason, the same as I thought about Pearson and Lowe was a numpty for letting him go.

 

If I let you know where I think you are wrong every time I would look like a stalker so I will carry on just skaking my head at the disbeleif of the worl you must live in sometimes ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the truth. People stayed away because the product was very poor and a waste of hard earned cash in a time of recession. To turn the drop in attendances into some concerted Anti-Lowe crusade is cyber-warriordome at its most crass. Market forces drove Lowe out, not Stanley/Mole and the rest of his "warrior band". They could not produce a product that people wanted to buy. Simples

 

Me and CB have disagreed on a fair bit recently but on this I 100% agree. The worse the team got the less support they were going to get. We played better away from home and there for often got better support.

 

We could have played better at home with different tactics but that never happened until it was too late.

 

It didnt get better after Lowe left either as gates were comparable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My grandfather was Swiss and had nothing to do with football - but he would have hated what Lowe and his cohorts did to our club over their tenure. He boycotted SMS - but then again he did die in the 1950's!

 

I really think this is all water under the bridge now - I was very vocal about my boycott and proud...however how many did the same will never be established. However one thing is for certain my old Saints supporting mate "The Itchen Sitter" won't be back...it was all just too much for him. It wasn't Lowe in truth it was the lack of drive, spirit and quality that drove him away - but we know who to blame for that!

 

I've found myself looking at life slightly differently - a round trip to SMS is equivalent to a good day out in the MX5, a slap up dinner in Mrs Miggin's Pie Shoppe, and a night away. On the basis of the last few seasons I know which one I would chose - but will it all change now we are on the brink of a brand new dawn in the clubs history?

 

I guess I'll always be a Saints fan and less of a "financial" supporter after this debacle - I'm going to write a book on it all and make millions..."Life after Lowe"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is such a funny thread. lol. Lets slap ourselves on the back and congratulate ourselves we bankrupted our own so called love b3ecause we couldnt have our own way.Not only did we we do it once and regret it we didnt learn but did it again. i also love the sermon about incomes and outgoings, telling us about financial prudence. It was the lot the first time that took over under the 'fans wishes' that racked up the overspend. Lol

Carry on convincing yourselves that it was down to you it really is funny reading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wasn't Lowe in truth it was the lack of drive, spirit and quality that drove him away

"

At least you are honest. If we had been winning more than losing the boycott would not have happened. The truth is I doubt any fan sat well with RL but we stomached it because it was our club.We knew he would not be there forever and there were some good as well as bad. sadly many fans were there only for the big time and until we get back to those days they still will stay away.Afterall we will get Im not paying that to watch pubfootball or a load of kids.That mindset will not change until those pub footballers or kids are playing Man U and chelsea.

Ps Yorkie i hope you do come back

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some like you, Nick, say that the fans boycott was totally ineffectual, whereas others blame us by telling us that if just 500 of us had turned up to all home games, we might have avoided administration.

 

Who is right?

 

Personally, I'm inclined to think that there were many reasons for the declining crowds, such as Lowe's return, the high prices for watching the youth team, the poor Dutch saps, the lack of success that understandably followed on the field, the dismissal of Pearson and so on. But as the numbers of those who actually boycotted cannot be proven, then it has to be accepted that there is the possibility that they were sufficient to tip the balance to push us over the edge.

 

Fair comment?

 

Anyway, this is all thankfully water under the bridge. Let's move onwards and upwards, eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some like you, Nick, say that the fans boycott was totally ineffectual, whereas others blame us by telling us that if just 500 of us had turned up to all home games, we might have avoided administration.

 

Who is right?

 

Personally, I'm inclined to think that there were many reasons for the declining crowds, such as Lowe's return, the high prices for watching the youth team, the poor Dutch saps, the lack of success that understandably followed on the field, the dismissal of Pearson and so on. But as the numbers of those who actually boycotted cannot be proven, then it has to be accepted that there is the possibility that they were sufficient to tip the balance to push us over the edge.

 

Fair comment?

 

Anyway, this is all thankfully water under the bridge. Let's move onwards and upwards, eh?

I believe it was a combination of things and Yorkie was honest enough to point that out.I dont doubt rL was devisive but to some LM LC Askham and others are also in small parts. What is paramount was the relegation. RL was in charge and should shoulder much of the blame but so should the players and management. The fans lost their faith and nerve after the Leeds game and since that time they turned and in the main never returned.

Add to all the other disappointments and of course the return of the unpopular RL and it was a dxrip drip loss of love. I douby many will return, but i am not going to hold grudges, it happened, the fans who didnt turn up couldnt face to do so under RL that is their choice.I dont think they should be congratulating themselves as they nearly killed the club and if we didnt get lucky with the Swiss we would have ended up with what??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some like you, Nick, say that the fans boycott was totally ineffectual, whereas others blame us by telling us that if just 500 of us had turned up to all home games, we might have avoided administration.

 

Who is right?

 

Personally, I'm inclined to think that there were many reasons for the declining crowds, such as Lowe's return, the high prices for watching the youth team, the poor Dutch saps, the lack of success that understandably followed on the field, the dismissal of Pearson and so on. But as the numbers of those who actually boycotted cannot be proven, then it has to be accepted that there is the possibility that they were sufficient to tip the balance to push us over the edge.

 

Fair comment?

 

Anyway, this is all thankfully water under the bridge. Let's move onwards and upwards, eh?

 

When I was at sixth form college, I helped set up a student society that argued for democracy and human rights in every corner of the globe. An encouraging number of students supported our stance.

 

Within three months of our formation, the Berlin Wall fell. Although it cannot be proven, it has to be accepted that there is a possibility that this was sufficient to tip the balance to push the Soviet bloc over the edge.

 

Fair comment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I was at sixth form college, I helped set up a student society that argued for democracy and human rights in every corner of the globe. An encouraging number of students supported our stance.

 

Within three months of our formation, the Berlin Wall fell. Although it cannot be proven, it has to be accepted that there is a possibility that this was sufficient to tip the balance to push the Soviet bloc over the edge.

 

Fair comment?

what pushed the soviet bloc over the egde was that america was spending millions upon million per DAY on the cold war and the soviets just ran out of money

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I was at sixth form college, I helped set up a student society that argued for democracy and human rights in every corner of the globe. An encouraging number of students supported our stance.

 

Within three months of our formation, the Berlin Wall fell. Although it cannot be proven, it has to be accepted that there is a possibility that this was sufficient to tip the balance to push the Soviet bloc over the edge.

 

Fair comment?

 

I think that the perspective between your analogy and mine has been rather blown out of proportion. I'm quite content to believe that my little contribution taken together with many others might indeed have amounted to the straw that broke the camel's back. If you wish to believe that your college debate as a spotty teenager helped to overthrow the Soviet tyranny, then all I can say is that despite the passage of all those years, your debating skills haven't improved much since your college days. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the perspective between your analogy and mine has been rather blown out of proportion. I'm quite content to believe that my little contribution taken together with many others might indeed have amounted to the straw that broke the camel's back. If you wish to believe that your college debate as a spotty teenager helped to overthrow the Soviet tyranny, then all I can say is that despite the passage of all those years, your debating skills haven't improved much since your college days. ;)

It was good though Wes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the perspective between your analogy and mine has been rather blown out of proportion. I'm quite content to believe that my little contribution taken together with many others might indeed have amounted to the straw that broke the camel's back. If you wish to believe that your college debate as a spotty teenager helped to overthrow the Soviet tyranny, then all I can say is that despite the passage of all those years, your debating skills haven't improved much since your college days. ;)

 

I'm quite certain the impact of both efforts was absolutely zero. The boycotters who believe they have brought about this bright new dawn are just as delusional of the spotty teenagers who belived we'd helped bring down the Soviet empire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you would almost certainly be boycotting that lot as well.

Are your mates Roger etc who I met outside the ground with you definitely getting s/t's now?

 

I'm sure they will. They usually buy 7 or 8 of them as a family; have done so for many, many years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm quite certain the impact of both efforts was absolutely zero. The boycotters who believe they have brought about this bright new dawn are just as delusional of the spotty teenagers who belived we'd helped bring down the Soviet empire.

 

Well, again, by bracketing the two things together, you fail to accept that your case is weakened by not considering the differences in perspective.

 

I can prove a loss of revenue to the club from several personal friends and acquaintances who I know for a fact boycotted several matches. Naturally it cannot be proven exactly how much in total was lost to the club from the boycott, or whether it was sufficient to be the last straw. But I am that much closer to proving my position than you, who cannot point to anything you did that brought about the downfall of the Soviet Union.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, again, by bracketing the two things together, you fail to accept that your case is weakened by not considering the differences in perspective.

 

I can prove a loss of revenue to the club from several personal friends and acquaintances who I know for a fact boycotted several matches. Naturally it cannot be proven exactly how much in total was lost to the club from the boycott, or whether it was sufficient to be the last straw. But I am that much closer to proving my position than you, who cannot point to anything you did that brought about the downfall of the Soviet Union.

 

Well, we sent lots of books and quite measurable funds to Eastern bloc dissidents. So, that's something tangible.

 

But clearly, I don't seriously believe I was instrumental in bringing down the USSR.

 

I think my exasperation is really with Stanley rather than you. If the fanbase is going to move forward in a united way, it just grates that the "boycotters" are claiming some factional credit for the fact that we're about to be owned by a billionaire.

 

The implication is that those of us who sat through and paid for many hours of grim football last season were responsible for keeping Lowe in place and the credit for the Liebherr takeover goes to the "real fans" who stayed away.

 

I think that's both factually incorrect and also v unhelpful in trying to unite the fanbase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, we sent lots of books and quite measurable funds to Eastern bloc dissidents. So, that's something tangible.

 

But clearly, I don't seriously believe I was instrumental in bringing down the USSR.

 

I think my exasperation is really with Stanley rather than you. If the fanbase is going to move forward in a united way, it just grates that the "boycotters" are claiming some factional credit for the fact that we're about to be owned by a billionaire.

 

The implication is that those of us who sat through and paid for many hours of grim football last season were responsible for keeping Lowe in place and the credit for the Liebherr takeover goes to the "real fans" who stayed away.

 

I think that's both factually incorrect and also v unhelpful in trying to unite the fanbase.

 

I must say I agree in general. I don't have any issues with those who loyally attended regardless of the board or the manager or the dross that was served up in the name of football last season and certainly don't accuse them of prolonging the Lowe regime. We are all entitled to our own beliefs, opinions and actions.

 

We can only hope that now those divisive elements and egos are no longer associate with the club, that unity can return once more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is such a funny thread. lol. Lets slap ourselves on the back and congratulate ourselves we bankrupted our own so called love b3ecause we couldnt have our own way.Not only did we we do it once and regret it we didnt learn but did it again. i also love the sermon about incomes and outgoings, telling us about financial prudence. It was the lot the first time that took over under the 'fans wishes' that racked up the overspend. Lol

Carry on convincing yourselves that it was down to you it really is funny reading.

 

Ah!!!!!!!! the true nick has fallen off the fence...what side has he landed!!..the Lowe side ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by nickh viewpost.gif

This is such a funny thread. lol. Lets slap ourselves on the back and congratulate ourselves we bankrupted our own so called love b3ecause we couldnt have our own way.Not only did we we do it once and regret it we didnt learn but did it again. i also love the sermon about incomes and outgoings, telling us about financial prudence. It was the lot the first time that took over under the 'fans wishes' that racked up the overspend. Lol

Carry on convincing yourselves that it was down to you it really is funny reading.

Ah!!!!!!!! the true nick has fallen off the fence...what side has he landed!!..the Lowe side ;)

 

Even a total idiot would have trouble linking this to Lowe, just basic common sense. Once again you truly excelled yourself.

 

Lowe does not come into the equation, these previous idiotic acts of financial management stand alone!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thankyou for making the sacrifice and killing off the Lowe regime. You are the reason that Lowe and Wilde are no longer at the club. You are the reason that we don't have to endure life in League 1 with Lowe and Wilde still at the club. You are the reason that Saints are now on the verge of single ownership, and that the PLC is dead. You are the reason that Saints now have a future and that the feelgood factor is returning.

 

Thankyou for making it happen, you saved SFC.

 

I assume this is not Sarcy!

 

I was one who boycotted Lowe absolutely since his return despite being a ST holder of many, many years. Staying away was a really hard thing to do but I suppose you could say he won as my money was paid up front.

 

Just can't wait to get back up there, I've missed those pies bigtime!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even a total idiot would have trouble linking this to Lowe, just basic common sense. Once again you truly excelled yourself.

 

Lowe does not come into the equation, these previous idiotic acts of financial management stand alone!

 

Well only a total idiot as you say......would be defending himself against a groundswell of opinion, that is against Lowe....but you and you Ilk, fit the bill. OSM is right.......the RaRa girls are still kicking, but your legs will get tired in the end, and that man will be forgotten. It makes me laugh, that you and others tell us to get over him, yet are the very ones prolonging his involvement.

 

As for what I said re nickh......is was the combination of posts previous, rather than the individual post...but I guess you couldn't make that leap!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boycotting wasn't turning your back on the club, it was supporting the club in it's hour of need. Administration has been inevitable for some time and by boycotting the process was accelerated. If we'd have got 25,000 gates last season Lowe would still be at the club and we'd be facing life in L1 with him still here slowly sapping the life out of us before we eventually went into admin anyway. Thanks to the fans not attending (either through boycotting or for other reasons) we entered admin this summer and here we are like a phoenix about rise from the ashes.

 

Exellent post.

 

You just need to look at the 3 gates after he left Charlton 27,228; Palace 23,220 and Burnley 23,927 whereas when he was here it was down around 15k.

(I think Radio Hants or Solent said there was only about 9k in the ground for the Sheff Utd game although the gate that night was listed as 13,257, so that 15k might be on the high side).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will eat my own feet and post the video on youtube if the average gate rises by more than 3-5 thousand this season

 

But you seem to be acknowledging that it will rise? I dont think it will personally, until we get a manager and team we can get behind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you seem to be acknowledging that it will rise? I dont think it will personally, until we get a manager and team we can get behind.

 

Hopefully you won't go, and everyone else can enjoy going to the football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well only a total idiot as you say......would be defending himself against a groundswell of opinion, that is against Lowe....but you and you Ilk, fit the bill. OSM is right.......the RaRa girls are still kicking, but your legs will get tired in the end, and that man will be forgotten. It makes me laugh, that you and others tell us to get over him, yet are the very ones prolonging his involvement.

 

As for what I said re nickh......is was the combination of posts previous, rather than the individual post...but I guess you couldn't make that leap!!

Ginge, you must get over the RL thing. Lets move on and get behind the new regime.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exellent post.

 

You just need to look at the 3 gates after he left Charlton 27,228; Palace 23,220 and Burnley 23,927 whereas when he was here it was down around 15k.

(I think Radio Hants or Solent said there was only about 9k in the ground for the Sheff Utd game although the gate that night was listed as 13,257, so that 15k might be on the high side).

Lol and so 6 inches of snow wasnt the reason, it was a boycott due to RL. You didnt mention the Man Utd cup game when 32000 turned up, all those boycotters forgot he was still there.Lol

There is no doubt RL played a part in the stay aways but the REAL reason is that they want to watch top class football.Dont we all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You didnt mention the Man Utd cup game when 32000 turned up, all those boycotters forgot he was still there.Lol

 

+1. abso f**kin lutely. To paraphrase Fry, our top man was attracted to us by a number of qualities including the "club's rich sporting heritage, loyal fan-base, first-class stadium and training facilities and the potential for the Saints to regain their rightful place at the higher echelons of English football".

 

Heed that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...