um pahars

And you've been trolling, insulting, accusing, antagonising, sending insulting PM's over the last couple of years, so spare me the sanctimonious, holier than thou approach. Maybe you should have heeded your own words over the last couple of years. As my hero Lauren said "I can forgive you, but I'd rather just forget you;)"

Bravo. Would have loved to have your intimate knowledge of boredom and your interjections at our disposal when this troll was ruining a potentially good board over recent months.

It's a pity you've taken 6 different guises (and various changes within each of those) to get to this stage.:smt117 All of a sudden we're supposed to believe you've changed your ways and the days of Sundance Beast and the earlier versions of Nineteen Canteen were just a pipedream:D

Can only presume that's for Pulis Senior as there's no way the one we're paying could run 26 fcking miles LOL. PS Who bet me he would play 15 times this season, as it's time to call the debts in as it was drinks pre match:drinkers::drinkers: Whoever it was needs to get up the Pensioners by 1!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm more interested in Chris Iwelumo's views on our recent performances.

I agree, but to sell him you have to have someone who not only wants to buy him, but is also willing to pay him a wedge that is commensurate or close to what he would earn by staying here.

The problem is that all football debts must be honoured if we want to play in this league, so whether they want to pay his wages is irrelevant. They have to honour his contract if they want to recceive the "Golden Share". There's nothing to stop them trying to come to some agreement with Rasiak, or as others have suggested letting him go on a free, but the ball is in his court. Given it's his final year and there is probably a "loyalty" bonus in there somewhere, he's probably due something like £750k, which is a fair whack to walk away from!!!!!!!

Something not lost on me regarding your inability to work out the timing relating to that overdraft, despite all you pontifications on this site. Happy to come on here and cast your ill founded accusations, but then rather quiet when they are proved incorrect (maybe now you would like to correct your earlier claims about the overdraft, but then again considering you've ignored all the posts on the matter ever since you were found out, I'm not holding my breath). Maybe we'll now have the blustering tactic of twisting the scenario, diverting attention or ignoring it long enough so you can say "that was ages ago, move on" LOL.

You're obviously too young to remember the dark days down there then when they were probably even more vociferous than us towards their owners/board etc, and even more apathetic when it came to turning up. They've been happy bunnes in recent years because a couple of rich foreigners have been happy to plough millions into them in order to bring them success. No wonder they're happy and fair play to them. But rewind a few years and you'll see that they, like many other clubs, are just like us. I can only assume you have no knowledge of the "Deacon era" although I would have thought you would have known about hte "Gregory Days".

You really couldn't be further from the truth. I think there are huge problems that would need to be overcome to get fans ownership/involvement going at this moment in time, but I have to say the amount of misinformation and ignorance on alot of these issues is disconcerting.

So are you just against those currently (and previously) running the Trust and their actions to date, or are you against the various principles involved, because from this post I don't really thing you have been clear? Additionally you seem to be confused and have contradicted yourself on a number of issues (notably regarding the involvement of the "common" fan). I think many of your points are valid criticisms of the current (and previous) Boards of the Trust, but that's not to say they are valid of the concepts and principles involved. I'm sure there are mnay issues that would need to be resolved, but don't think you have really highlighted any major ones here. I think there are some serious problems with regards funding (now and going forward) with such initiatives, but sadly your criticisms don't really seem to get past the point of having a moan about how things are currently (and previously) run (I'd liken it to having a moan about Lowe and therefore saying SFC will always be rubbish, cos it's rubbish with Lowe at the helm). Cutting to the chase, I think you have provided a number of good reasons why the current board of The Trust might not be worthy of your support, but I have yet to see you come up with a decent argument as to why the concept of a Supporters Trust is unworkable. I think there are some very valid points/issues you could have mentioned, but you to date I don't think you have engaged with them.

Don't worry, you're in the hardcore group, it's just we need 3 or 4 equivalents to make a FTE. I wasn't trying to denegrate or suggest anyone s a better supporter than another, we are all individuals and have different influences in our lives, just trying to get people to face facts about how many we can pull in and not expect 30,000 regardless of what division we're in or how sht we are. To not expect attendances not to fluctuate, for a number of different reasons, is naive.

The common fan would not be running the company. It would be no different from the existing shareholder relationship. When you buy shares in a company, it isn't a pre requiste that you could or owuld have to run the company. My problem is that we have seen this Club run into the ground by a clique of supposed businessmen. I'm strugglng to reconcile some of your posts on this with what you're saying now. Struggling again. Is it the uber fans you have a problem (as you're saying here) or do you have a problem with the concept??? Some serious questions as hopefully it might flesh out some of the reasons for you thinking this way, as being honest whilst a degree of scepticism is to be expected here (as I think there are some very bug hurdles to jump over), I do think some of your way of thinking is somewhat hypocricital and contradictory.

From what point??? I am very sceptical given the sums involved and I'm also sceptical given some of the names, but I also feel there is a fair bit of misinformation and misunderstanding out there. But what is wrong with co-ordinating some input from the supporters to assist an existing consortium (as happened at Swansea)???? Are we really that different from Exeter (we're "bigger" than them but probably starting off the season from a lower league position) ??? And if we go down to Level 8 or 9, then I think a "new club" could well be based around supporters getting involved. Or does Southampton FC just die and we all go off elsewhere????

But would the structure of the Club be ??? Ltd Co??? Some other set up??? What do you define as a common fan (and what distinguishs a non common fan from the ones you want nvovled)??? and How would you prevent them from owning a share/stake in the new Club???

So you would rather we started again in The Wessex or Southern Leagues than be party to a fans led/involved consortium?? How would this new Club at the bottom of the pyramid be set up/owned??

Cut him adrift would be my shout. Hasn't impressed me by either his words or his deeds. Also can't help but associate him with the pathetic Revolutionary Coaching Set Up and the total bllocks that was spouted in the first 2/3rds of the season.

So what's your view going forward then Stu??

Not heard that before.

Been saying that for ages. I couldn't even begn to suggest that my estimates have any credibility, but my gut feel has been: Hard core of 14,000ish Another 4,000 who will come with a modicum of success and persuasion (18,000) Another 4,000 who wll come if we're average (the 22,000 who came for the last two seasons) Another 4,000 - 8,000 who would come if we're doing really well in The Championship or back in The Premiership (26,000 - 30,000) It's not really rocket science and the harsh facts of reality is that to get above the hard core of 14,000ish you have to start providing people with a reason to come (success on the pitch, a spirit of unity, cheap tickets, a car crash, decent opposition etc etc etc). The idea that we sould blame the stayways is somewhat naive and missing the point. It is up to those in charge of the Club to be providing a reason for them to come. Above our core crowd we're into the entertainment business, so it's pathetic to blame anyone apart from those failing to provide the entertainment. Otherwise we might as well just start shouting at the 95%+ of the City's population who don't come to every game:rolleyes:

Were you also of the view (as I was) that the League would not sit back and accept this ruse???? It's polarised opinion on here, with as many thinking we could pull it off as warning we wouldn't, but I could never see how a members organisation would sit back and allow such an attempt at smoke and mirrors to pass off unopposed. I'm also amazed that "experienced football administrators" such as Lowe and co. thought they could pull it off.

Judging by the comments after his departure and these comments by Wotte, it would appear that Lowe and co. have misjudged the situation regarding administration and the points deduction (as we stand here today). You can take all the legal advice you want (and very often it will contradict itself and come to different conclusions and interpretations), but ultimately the call has to be made by those in charge. Therefore the Board's belief that points would not be deducted has clearly proven incorrect, and if this belief had any impact on the decision to go/or not to go into adminstration then that decision may also have been flawed as well.

I understand he initially stumped £50k as a donation and since then has been stumping up again to meet the shortfall.

It's all pssing in the wind as the true reason we are in Administration is due to the financial failings of the Football Club. Technically the PLC is in administration, but the PLC is in administration solely because of the Football Club's financial problems. There can be no doubt about that. We already have non footballing revenue that is apparently double what the Insurance Company and Radio Station used to bring in and the idea that just because we could/shuld have 3 or 4 branches off the main PLC would not alter the simple fact that it is the Football CLub that is bringing us down. "Substance Over Form" I'm afraid and with the League being a Member's Organisation we're nto talking about legal technicalities here, it's their game and if we want to play then we have to accept it.

Thought this from Benjii last night was a pretty good summation, in that I also agree that Crouch didn't explain himself very well in that interview (as others have pointed out, what he said was incorrect as the holding company relationship was established in 1996!!!). I have to take my hat off to Crouch if he really is funding the Club to the tune that some people are intimating, but that also doesn't mean he is above criticism. I don't think that interview was very good, nor was it necessary. If he wants to get involved in saving the Club then fair play, but I feel he should just leave these issues to the Administrators and their legal team.