um pahars

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.

I know exactly what Oakley was on, I knew exactly what his drop was when we got relegated and I know exactly what was on offer on the table for his new contract. I also know that Lee Hoos was renting out Matty's house in Winchester etc etc etc as I just happen to have very good connections to the guy. Sorry to burst your bubble (then again I'm always bursting your bubble LMFAO) but on this one I did know the facts. I don't know why you're getting your knckers in a twist LOL (although it's quite funny to show you up - again), because as I have sadi it's just one of those things in football (I certainly wasn't looking to blame anyone) As for AdrianSFC, well after owning you I'll be posting in a minute to own him, as Oakley and his agent were dealing with Lowe as he was in charge at that time (the new lot came in after Oakley had left).

When Leeds after their fans invaded the pitch during the game and held it up for quite a while, all they got was nothing more than a slapped wrist. The decision was taken 5 months later in which time Leeds and the authorities were at loggerheads over their points deduction and it didn't affect the pitch invasion decision.

That's far too sensible a post!!!!!!! I also await Tom28's reply, because his ignorance of where the power lay in that period is astounding (I'm awaiting the retort of, "Well he Football Club Chairman").

;)Aha, but it's also because he didn't want to work with the youngsters, in addition to being so much more expensive than Little & Large. He also found the sea air a problem with his respiratory system, the particular pollen at Staplewood gave him a tight chest and he didn't like stripes. It wasn't Lowe's fault you see, it all went wrong in the two years he was away[-X:smt018

Not true. The issue for Oakley was solely down to money and contract. Even at the last minute Burley asked Oakley to come back in to discuss staying on, but as the deal on the table was still the same, Oakley refused to accept it. You ether have to blame Lowe for not offering enough, Oakley for wanting too much, somehwere in between, or alternatively just accept this is just one of these things that happens in fooball. His comments about Pearson don't make pleasant reading for Saints fans!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I do think there are a number of similarities, with many clubs being neagtively affected by the impact of relegation with regards the morale of the team and the Club itself. Some manage to shake it off and bounce back, whilst for others it lingers around. On top of that there is probably some fall out from having to restructure the finances as the numbers are so different (although Norwich were not an established Premiership side). But I also don't think we should allow the failings of other clubs to paper over the cracks of our own deficiencies and to hide our own poor decisions as "one of those things that could happen to any club"!!! Whilst i agree no one has the divine right not to be relegated, you certainly increase your chances by continually making the poor decisions our "leaders" have made in recent years.

Still on gardening leave (with full pay)!!!!!

Actually, I retract my earlier post as I would love to know just WTF this guy was doing, particulalry when you put it against his claims that the whole Revolutionary Coaching Set Up was a joint plan by him and Lowe!!!!

I would have to agree, and as I said in the missing £40m thread, I don't believe he (or others) have done anything underhand (pss poor decision making maybe, but not fraudulent). You only have to look at the results of his tenure and judge him by his results (as he himself wanted to be judged), without having to pour over the minor details of the disaster we have become. Is there really anything that we would really need to know????

By looking at who was in charge when the parachute payments fell away and who failed to implement Plan B (i.e. Hone). Then looking at the answer Jones provided at the AGM with regards it being a blip/timing issue. Crouch does need to accept his share of the blame for certain things (and personally, whilst I admire his deep pockets at the moment, I do think he should take a back seat), but blaming him for the failings of the summer of 2007 and increasing the wage bill nstead of reducing it is not one of them as he was powerless to do anything about it in the short term.

I wouldn't be posting that up on here, it's a public forum FFS and I would be keeping that quiet!!!!!! As the crow flies, the By-Pass ground is by far the closest. When the new Club is formed, we won't want any yokels from out of town that's for sure.

Imagine that!!!!!!! I suppose we got off lightly with all his successes, it could have been REALLY bad had he not pulled it off:D