um pahars

And I respect the good grace with which you've taken your humbling;) Feel free to bite the ankles at any time, in fact it's quite enjoyable in a Malaysian fish foot spa type of way.

Matt Oakley thinks the train picture should come down (owned)

Absolutely. Nickh, NickG, JohnB and many others regularly post stuff up here that I vehemently disagree with, but I enjoy reading differing views and takes on things. It would indeed be dull if we all thought the same way and very often those with opposing, or slightly different viewpoints, make interesting and valid points. And that is exactly the difference. The way that this regurgitated poster trolls, antagonises, abuses, slurs and generally conducts himself ensures he is clearly seen for what he is. Someone just forwarded me his old PM that he sent around and it certainly backs up the fact he is merely trolling for attention;) 19C, just like his previous guises, does a very good job of grooming and befriending one or two posters in order to achieve some sort of credibility on here. Weston is merely the latest to fall for this ruse, because as you say, nothing I have ever heard from or seen from Weston in the past would suggest he has nything whatsoever in common with this troll.

If we lose today then Wotte's record over a full season would have seen us get 48/49 points which would still be relegation form!!! He was integral to the Revolutionary Coaching Set Up that cost this Club so dearly in the first half of the season and has shown nothing in his solo stint to suggest he is the man to lead us out of the wilderness. Throw in his ill adivsed comments which didn't endear him to the fanbase, strong snippets that the dressing room isn't all sweetness and light with him in charge, and I think it's a definite no no with regards next season. IMHO one of our biggest problems this season was that it took too long for the Revolutionary Coaching Set Up to become accustomed to Championship Football and we simply cannot affor to have someone learning on the job again. Sadly, I was worried that history would repeat itself with the one bit of short term success that Poortvliet achieved was following on from Wotte who had presided over the relegation and "administration" of Den Bosch!!!!

We had just bought Rasiak, Fuller was still at the Club, Kenwyne was coming through, BWP had just come in and of course there was Best (maybe even DMG!!!) competing for places. Just one of those things for me that happens in football. A manager favours his own players and overlooks others who might/could be good players.

Absolutely. The League have interpreted the rules and the situation to state that the Football Club are effectively in Admnistration and so effectively they could (and I think they will) do exactly the same with regards any CVA, in that they will once again deem the PLC and Club to be inextricably linked and therefore be treated as such.

I did an analysis of Leauge position over the last 10, 20, 30 & 40 years a while back as someone had descrbed us as cannon fodder. Here's the results: Starting from the 2004 season (i.e. the one before we got relegated) and going backwards our average league position has been: 10 years to 1995 = 13th 20 years to 1985 = 13th 30 years to 1975 = 14th 40 years to 1965 = 15th I don't think anyone has ever claimed us to be up there with the big boys regularly fighting for trophies, but over the last 40 years to be 15th out of 92 in the footballing pyramid is a pretty good record. Going back 40 years to 1965 would probably cover the vast majority of those who come on this board, but even going back to late 1950's, we're probably still in the top 20.

I mistakenly deleted those belters of PM's we all got:D:D Hardly sensible;) You're quite right, in that I have said before that his various guises spout so much rubbsh, he finds it difficult to continue with the act LOL. PS Could you forward me your copy of the PM'ss if you still have it (only those that were originally sent to me as well mind).

You lost me at the first sentence;) Sensible posters don't get banned by the Admins on numerous occasions (only to reappear under different names) and they certainly don't get a number of their posts deleted/amended by the Admins for spouting fallacies, inaccuraces and libellous comments. I can only assume you have a rather different notion on what is sensible than many others.

I hope it's not all my fault that we got those 10 points deducted:mad:

No one does PM's quite like Sundance/Nineteen;)

I think inappropriate is indeed the best way of describing this decision. Should Lowe be blackballed from St Mary's, or from watching Saints forever? I don't think so, but with the pain so raw and recent, he would have been better advised to keep his head down unitl things had panned out. I have been saying for years that at times like this Cowen should kick his shins under the table and whisper "bad idea". There's something rather weird about his insistence of staying in the limelight and brassing it out. I always had a worry that Lowe just didn't "get it" and there is noting in his recent words or actions that have made me change my mind on that one (if anything, it's enhanced that perception of him).

Which of the following are you struggling with (as these accompanied the "foreseeable future" comment/statement of around the 7th/8th Feb)???? "we will not be rushed into an appointment", "It allows the Club more time over the hunt for a replacement", "We always said we would take our time to make sure we appoint the right person" It allows the Club to take their time over the hunt for a replacement for George Burley.

It did seem to rumble on that's for sure, but there were some midweek games in there (and a couple of Cup matches). I think it was only 4 League games. That said, Burley was on the SFA shortlist for a while so that probably added to the length of the saga and even though he was not favourite, I would liked to have seen some contingency planning (but that stull doesn't excuse the claims D & G were permanent and the other dodgy claims on here).

It was a tad over three weeks!!!! I personally think we dillied and dallied over replacing Burley and knowing he was on the Scottish FA's shortlist, then I think we should have drafted a shortlist of our own and got on and replaced him immediately. But I also have to say the claims that D & G were appointed permanently (as Foxstone insinuates) are somewhat wide of the mark. (even at the time of D&G remaining in charge for the "foreseeable future" comments they were accompanied by the following quotes: "we will not be rushed into an appointment", "It allows the Club more time over the hunt for a replacement", "We always said we would take our time to make sure we appoint the right person" "It allows the Club to take their time over the hunt for a replacement for George Burley.".)

Hello Mr Pot:D;)

More like 5 seconds was enough!!!!! Had to chuckle when visualising your account of the League's lawyers just strolling in, pressing play, then strolling out, without uttering a word!!!!!

That's what you (or was it Sundance or Flashman or The Bear or Whoever) thought about the alternatives to our shrewd and effective CEO when he came back last time;)

Shrewd :confused:;-) Effective ;) :smt117:smt117

But isn't the problem that the Football Club has stayed clear of administration, but that hasn't affected the League's stance as they have still deducted points????? It would appear to me that the League have deemed the PLC's administration to also mean the administration of SFC Ltd. Therefore it seems wholly logical that the League will also deem the PLC's CVA to also be "inextricably linked" linked to SFC Ltd, and therefore if we can't get one agreed then further sanctions will apply (i.e. a further -15). A key line for me from the League's statement was: "The other provisions of The League's insolvency policy also become effective" http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/News/ChampionshipNewsDetail/0,,10794~1636735,00.html

If only life was so easy so straightforward, or alternatively if you weren't so naive and blinkered in your views. Of course the long term view would be to get the Club back on the straight and narrow (on and off the pitch), but if faced with the immediate crisis of having no suitable goalkeeper, injuries to key players or a squad needing beefing up, then I think most would argue that it would footballing and economic sense to temporarily relax the financial restraints. If the alternative was relegation (and probably administration) then it there is a very rational argument to be made that it would have been one hell of a false economy not to get Wright and some of the others in. As it turned out, we stayed up, we stayed out of administration and we had the support of the Bank and other creditors to continue trading. On top of that, Crouch came in mid season which is probably not the best time to start restructuring a Club. A much better opportunity would be the summer with contracts expiring, a longer transfer window and the pre season to bed in a new team if many had to be offloaded. And of course the best time would have been the summer of 2007 when Plan B should have been adopted, but was instead ignored by those who then held the balance of power i.e. Hone & the Executives (the same Executives who you believe played it all with a "straight bat") Crouch inherited a £6m overdraft, and during a very stormy period he maintained both our Championship status and the support of our major creditors. Pearson as well as Crouch were aware of the longer term issues relating to reducing costs, but they were also not blind to the more immediate crisis of staying in the Championship. If you thought all of our problems could be solved in six months, then I'm sure that not even SuperCrouch [sic] could have managed that. Relegation would have most certainly meant administration, so when judged against the bigger picture, Crouch and Pearson delivered. Just what would have been the point of bringing down costs drastically in that 5 month period only to have the Club relegated and then go into administration? You have to fight one battle at a time and ensure you win the most important ones. We will never know whether Crouch and Pearson could have delivered in the longer term (on and off the pitch), but we certainly do know that Lowe, Wilde and the Revolutionary Coaching Set Up failed. Pearson inherited a demoralised and underperforming squad, still suffering from the after shock of having a manger who was demotivated and knew he was on his way out, and some caretakers who obviously didn't inspire them (the dilly dallying after Burley was something where I think criticism of Crouch is fair). Even given the raw material available to Poortvliet, I don't think it is too much to assume Pearson would have the squad performing better than the 0.9 points per game Poortvliet achieved. Additionally, we were not the lost cause you are now trying to make out. I ceratinly don't remember Lowe, Wilde or the Revolutionary Coaching Set Up mention anything about failing, and I certainly don't think Lowe & Wilde returned to preside over relegation and administration. They came back thinking they could arrest the decline and turn things around.

I am sure that Charlton offered him a one year deal, and also thought Ipswich were interested as well at some point, but it was the fact that Derby offered him a three year deal that swung it. Can't remember any link with Fulham, but understood Charlton and Ipswich were offering more than we were.

I was going to tag this on to Dubai Phil's post, but yours is closer to the end!!!!!! I may well be wrong, but I don't think that just because someone has signed an NDA then it doesn't mean they cannot come out and say they are interested in acquiring the Club (or it's assets). Any opposing views out there on this??? I'm sure it precludes them from passing on or mentioning any confidential or sensitive information they are have been given access to, but I don't think it means they have to stay tight lipped over their interest. I don't think it would be too professional for the Administrator to leak their names, but they may believe it is in their interests to get their names out there.

Lowe was at the Club when Oakley decided to exercise freedom of contract. Oakley and his agent were dealing direct with Lowe all throughout that season and right up until Oakley walked. Lowe would not budge in his offer of a one year deal (which was his perogative). Burley wanted Oakley to sign and was continually ringing him & his agent up, right up until Oakley did not show up for training on 27th June 2006. Burley couldn't get Lowe to move on the one year deal and he couldn't get Oakley to move either. Here is a link showing that Oakley had decided prior to Lowe's departure on June 30th 2006: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/s/southampton/5121624.stm Funny thing is if Oakley hadn't got it into his mind to go to pastures new, then the new lot might well have given him a longer deal.