um pahars

I'm sorry nickh, but I have to say I think you spectacularly miss the point. Up to a certain point you will have the die hard supporters who will come what may. Maybe 7,000 to 12,000 (or somewhere either side of that). After that you have to provide them with a reason for coming. Bar the odd exception, every club will see a fluctuation in attendances due to the division they are playing in, the opposition they are playing, empathy with "their" club and probably most importantly perceived success. To suggest that supporters just needed to come back for everything to be alright is extremely naive and just doesn't resonate with what happens in the real world.

And I would like to think that there could be many links to the past through staff, backroom team and maybe even players, particularly the youngsters. And of course the biggest single link would be the supporters. Many Clubs have changed their names (am I right in thinkning Portsmuff reformed in the 70's/80's) and dropping a few divisions certainly won't affect my support. As Aldershot managed t do, I'm sure there is a way of keeping the continuity and tradition even if we end up non league.

And here's my two pieces of inside gossip from the same source who was convinced the Pinnacle deal would be given favoured status on Thursday (I think) of last week (so treat it with the same degree of caution). MLT has been saying they (Pinnacle) are an e-mail away from pulling it off. No idea what the e-mail relates to, or any other aspect of what the bid/offer entails. The second piece relates to another bid, maybe tied up with Green, or something standing alone. Apparently, the whisper that the Birmingham part owner (Sullivan or Gold???) wants to get involved but can't due to ownership restrictions. However, he is considering buying the stadium (other assets) as a toe in, whilst someone else holds the Club only to go the whole hog once clear of Birmingham!!!!!! Personally, I think number two is total ******, but thought it might cheer some of you up, and with regards the first one, I'm still of the view that this will all end in tears!!!!

And I wonder if you're still missing Positive Poortvliet;)

Southampton FC was not formed in 1885. The first team that morphed into Saints was established in 1885, but in those early days the Club morphed about a bit, changed its name, changed its status, changed its kit, changed its home ground etc etc etc. The Football Club Ltd part came about quite a bit later and IMHO even a move up or down the leagues will not change things for me as they will still be a Club that hopefully I can connect to.

Leeds, Andover, Salisbury????:smt038 You're beginning to sound like Lowe when he kept switching his alledged alliegances between West Ham, Ipswich and Saints.:rolleyes:

LOL He's our own Mick McManus or maybe Jackie Pallo LMFAO. Someone has even PM'd me suggesting it's Granty on a total wind up in an effort to drive up traffic on the site (ala Mike Parry on TalkSport;)). Recognise anyone NineSunThirdFlashTeen CanDanceManBearBeastTeen????

As the Good Ole Blues Brothers Boys sang in that Country bar: tROLLING, tROLLING, tROLLING:smt006

I would sugest that Matty is strong enough to formulate and espouse his own opinion. He certainly hasn't taken any sides, just been honest about where he feels the mistakes have been made. Then again I shouldn't be too surprised that your trolling needs a new target figure to rally behind, so I guess Matty will be in your cross hairs to provide future game on here. Just imagine a player of his quality playing his trade for Andover. Just what did happen to Scooby???

And with 2,000 bums on seats equating to circa £1m it's not a massive leap of faith to see where you're coming from. And that's before we even look at the wasteful transfer policy this season and the other poor decisions that plagued last season. Ending up where we are was not a fait accompli, as demonstrated by Lowe and Wilde coming back to save (LOL) the Club. Indeed, even midway through the season they felt there was still a chance to save the Club by changing the manager.

If you consider the bank tightened the purse strings by £1m last September, then surely a £2m+ injection would have us at least £1m better off than we were last August! I don't buy into the argument that we were a lost cause as Lowe and Wilde did not come back merely to preside over a funeral. It was a tough task, but certainly not a lost cause. If that £2m would have meant avoiding administration, staying up, not incurring a points deduction and not facing oblivion, then the three main parties should have done their utmost to get a deal done. Maintaining the status quo under Lowe & Wilde ended up with the total fckfest we now find ourselves in, so I for one would have been up for a respite and seeing if we could trade our way out of it in the long run.

With regards the first offer I never thought it could have been accepted on those terms, mainly on the basis that I didn't think that Lowe or Wilde either had the money or the desire to put any in to the Club. However, with regards how the offers and counter offers manifested, I think that by the time of the January meeting there was something that could have been acceptable to all concerned, if they were of the belief that such a cash injection could make a difference. But of course against this you have to remember that Lowe and Wilde were still of the view that they were capable of turning things around and so were not in need of Crouch's money nor support or advice. However, as we have now found out to our cost, the view that they could turn it around proved to be a fallacy, given it all went tts up two months later. Seeing as they failed miserably without Crouch and his money, it's not that much of a stretch to suggest things might have been different had they accepted some of the strings attached to the £2m (even if it only brought about some temporary respite).

Did you read The Echo piece Ponty, as from the spread that I saw it would appear that all sides took the negotiations quite seriously, not least because they rumbled on for three months. Of course ultimately none of them could agree on anything, but I don't think Seymour Pierce and Shoosmiths getting involved would suggest they were merely cursory. And I would have thought that given the current predicament we found ourselves in, then a potential £2m injection to stave off administration and avoid relegation should have been given more than a cursory look. In fact, I would say that anyone in charge of a company going down the swanny would be rather negligent if they didn't give any offer (no matter how unpalatable) more than a cursory glance.

Not in October/November it wasn't, and this was when the first offer was made (you know the very first offer that you are so keen we only concentrate on;)). And of course this is the offer you are suggesting was purely a PR exercise, so Crouch must be very poor at getting his PR machine working if he didn't get in in the press back then.

LOL, so it's fair to say you can't find any press relating to the "first chapter" and realise that the second offer did not expect Wilde to contribute. Glad we cleared that up, now you just need to run along and sharpen up your sub editing skills for your next exclusive LOL.

Feel free to post anything up here from October/November regarding this.

Your reply was to St Marco who was clearly outlining the second offer which was for Wilde to step down without investing any monies. HTH

Get past the first chapter and you will see that Wilde did not have to stump up any money. The revised offer/initiative that followed various correspondence and meetings was for Wilde to simply stand down.

I quite agree in that Crouch's initial approach was somewhat akin to a bull in a china shop. Personally, I think he should have been more amenable and concillatory, so you won't find me condoning his opening gambit. That's strange as I don't remember there being much press about this initial offer back in October, but feel free to post some of the associated press from back then up on here (otherwise you're just hot air - again LOL). One can only assume that you didn't read the article, nor know anything about the story here, as correspondence and meetings followed for around three months following the initial approach. Methinks it would probably be best for you to keep quiet on this one and instead praise the merits of Poortvliet's stunning footballing nous

Indeed it was. Whilst factually correct, it only reflected the very first letter in the episode and did not reflect any of the subsequent amendments, negotiations or revisions that took plave over a period of three months!!!!!!! The opening post up here in no way reflects the whole article, and has omitted many of the relevant factual parts of the episode as it panned out. Most of the subsequent comment comes from Crouch, so that has to be judged against the premise that that is only his opinion (and therefore may well be biased), but there are still some important parts that NickG never even read before he posted the opening piece up here. As I said in my first posts on this thread, people would do well to read the whole piece for themselves and make their own minds up as NickG's paraphrasing does not do it justice. In effect NickG has managed to paraphrase only the very first column in a five page spread!!!!!!!

Paul Philps and T J Robinson???????

Lifted from The Echo of 22nd May 2008 Lowe and Wilde wanted him to continue in his contracted ambassadorial role ...............Football board chairman Wilde confirmed the club's position and said they will now look for a figurehead to take over from McMenemy. "We were happy to have Lawrie for the other season on his contract and not only potentially just that but if it went well to renew it as well," he said.

But surely "demanding more than was ever going to be accepted" has to be judged against the context that two months later it all went to rat sht. As we are finding now, when you're really up against it then beggars can't really be choosers. But at the same time I fully accept that perhaps Crouch needed to wind in his demands and compromise if there was ever going to be a chance of it succeeded. And I'm not sure your interpretation that he stopped negotiations is fair as there is a piece in there about when informed of impending administration he was in contact with Cowen to see if a cash injection could avert it.

Although there is a line in there in a letter from Seymour Pierce to Crouch that says: "Michael Wilde is able to participate" and I interpreted this as saying Wilde could participate in injecting funds!!!!