um pahars

enjoy

Don't go by Bitterne

Get a grip you fcking big girls blouse. You'll be asking for a cuddle next and from what I've heard you're not that pretty;). But in all seriousness there is so much more that unites us than divides us, and we only get all grouchy and p1ssy up on here because we're all so passionate about our Club. Whatever happens we'll always be Saints. No hard feelings John and as I have said on many occasions I would be only too happy to stand you a pint when our paths eventually cross. Onwards and upwards. (PS Please accept my apologies for any personal insults or unnecessary comments over these last few very difficult years).

I may go corporate in the faint hope that Lowe does turn up;) or maybe try and find out from Askham and Richards just how we really did end up with Poortvliet.

I've been drinking all afternoon and on the BBQ so please exucse any faux pas.

I'm actually ambivalent about relegation and fully accept football is built on meritocracy. I enjoy watching Saints play any team and started out when we were in the old Division Two so a sojourn in Division Three doesn't hold any fear for me. Some of my mates were/are even up for a stint in the lower leagues if it all really goes tts up, with some fun away days to Bemerton, Hamworthy et al. Onwards and upwards, it all goes in circles at the end of the day.

There can be no doubt that Pearson's success only makes our pain even worse:mad: Just what the fck was Lowe (and those who brought him back) thinking last April/May?????? I may have to go and have a read of the OS and Adam Leitch's insightful reports on the appointment of the Revolutionary Coaching Set Up for a giggle to try and cheer me up!!!!!

Well hopefully we'll be able to emulate this next season!!!!!

Of course, just like Poortvliet!!!!!! At last Lowe didn't have to pay off Pearson so we saved some money there:smt119:smt119:rolleyes::smt119:mad:

And you'l get the same reply you got when you popped up last time This is what I found out when I looked at the team Pearson put out a couple of months ago: Here's his side today: 4 loanees 11 of the squad are 23 or under (7 are 20 or under) Martin - 23 (on loan) Gilbert - 21 (on loan) Morrison - 20 (new in) Hobbs - 20 (on loan) Berner - 31 (new in) Oakley - 31 Andy King - 20 Cleverley - 19 (on loan) Dyer - 26 (new in) Fryatt - 22 Howard - 32 Subs: Pentney - No age or data (but young) Chambers - 18 Gradel - 21 Mattock - 18 Dickov - 134 Pearson has shown by his deeds that he is not averse to playing youngsters, nor wheeling and dealing on a small budget. It was pretty obvious that he would be up for such a strategy, particularly when you look back to see he said the following not long after taking over: On youth: "A lot of my background is working with youngsters. I worked with the England youth teams for three years and I see the Academy as a massive part of the club. On working with limited funds "It will be a combination. The reality is there will be comings and goings, there is no doubt about that. Economics will play a part and there will be some natural wastage as players come to the end of their contracts. Then it will be a case of finding players who fit the bill. We need a side capable of getting success but which fits in with the financial situation. But we are not going to be splashing fortunes on players. Even in the short time I have been here, I have been looking to see if we can get players on loan. Short-term is the immediate priority but I am looking long-term too." On youth again, but how the relegation fight must be a priority It cannot be my priority at the moment but it will get my total support in terms of fitting in with the philosophy of the club. I have worked at clubs where the academy and first-team are separate entities and not integrated at all and those clubs are the poorer for it. If you put the right effort into recruiting and developing the right players then it can save the club a lot of money on transfer fees." Those that claim Pearson was only interested in big name players earning big name wages couldn't be more wrong, particularly when you look at his words and deeds in this area. To suggest that Pearson would not have wanted to work here, despite all the evidence showing otherwise and also ignoring the fact that Poortvliet and Wotte were already lined up, is actually a daming indictment of Lowe. Rather than support his footballing decisions you're actually making excuses for him because you know his first major decision was an absolute fck up. The very fact that even his most ardent supporters make excuses and are embarassed by that decision speaks volumes.

I agree it is an assumption, and one that can never be proved one way or the other, but I don't think it's that big to assume we woud not be in the position we find ourselves in if Pearson would have stayed on. In fact I think it's only Franks Cousin who thinks Pearson would have done just as bad.

Go on the link below, type in Rupert Lowe and listen to the interview he gave to SKY news which was almost identical to the others he was running with, and you'll get a very clear idea of where he believes the blame lies and certainly no evidence of him taking any share. http://news.sky.com/skynews/video In fact, I'll transcribe the key part here: "So my primary blame is twofold, first of all, the bank, in my opinion overlent to the club and overlent to the board, and secondly the board that presided over that period (2006-2008 ) did not act wisely, it acted with folly" The only time in the recent media circus was a small line (I think the one you mention) on one news report, but the main thrust of all his recent interviews was that the blame lies with the period between 2006-2008 and the bank and the board of that period were responsible. That interview was probably the most high profile one he conducted and that certainly sets out his position very clearly.

Kept Oakley, Fryatt & Howard and played them regularly, but rebuilt the rest of his team with judiscious loans and alot of home grown players. He's done very well this season and have to say well done. Hope we can emulate it next season.

No he didn't. HTH

Fck me, don't you remember the classic thread you started a few months back (that was really in the spirit of unity wasn't it!!!). Being lectured on here in recent days by some of the most rabid protagonists is somewhat galling if not giggling.

The Derby comparison is a total Red herring IMHO as points deductions were not in place when they went into administration. As the last line states they were brought in for the following season so Derby were not let off as the punishment was not in force. Whether they would have is a totally different argument that we will never know the answer to . West Ham is probably a better example, but even then there are differences. I don't think there are any precedents in play as we are the first Football League Club to put up this defence in the current climate of points deductions.

Similar, and yet different at the same time. Similar in that it is indeed the holding company that is in Administration and the seperate legal entity, being the football club, still trading as normal. The difference is that their football club is fairly solvent, raking in £50m+ each season, whilst I don't know how we as a football club have avoided administration as well.

LMFAO. I'm sat here thinking what a cheeky little ******. They've regularly taken stuff off of here and when this board gets going it knocks spots off the journalistic practices currently employed at The Echo. This season they've either been lifting stuff of here or replicating word for word what Saints have been laying on for them (the patsies). Some of their reporting this season has been risible (e.g. how they just took in the Revolutionary Coaching Set Up stuff from the Club and regurgitated it was a disgrace).

The revised £4m was communicated to Lowe and others in Spetember, of that there is no doubt. Well he did it, and that's all that matters. We have no idea why he failed to arrest going over, but going over we did, whilst he was in charge. My assumption is that he didn't think Barclay's would call in the overdraft and he certainly didn't show any real effort on raising cash in the January window, but if anyone can come up with a valid reason why we breached that limit, then I'm all ears. That #4m limit was firmly in place, so why we go over it? Rubbished it at the time and I'll rubbish it now. Barclay's will not be involved in day to day decisions on how to micro-manage the business. They will set parameters and milestones that we have to work within and meet, but they will not be running the business. If we don't meet their milestones or breach their parameters, then they have to re-evaluate their position. Simple as that.

Barclay's agreed their new position at some point at the start of the season and communicated it to Lowe in September. They wanted their exposure limited to £4m, simple as that. Everyone in the game knew that our limit was £4m overdrawn, so why it came as a surprise that Barclay's failed to honour cheques over this amount I do not know. Lowe knew the new rules of the game and I can only assume he misread Barclay's intentions. We must have had cashflows that showed we would breach this £4m figure so why we didn't take other actions to bring cash in would appear to be either (a) poor management and head in the sand stuff, (b) massively misreading the situation (particularly Barclay's intentions) or © a hopeless case (something I don't buy given we could have raised money even if in a firesale in the intervening 6 months). So I can only assume that when we started to go north of that figure and probably looked to go even further, then the bank pulled the plug. Nothing sinsiter, just Barclay's calling it in when their exposure looked to be getting worse and they decided enough was enough.

Have not seen the letter, but the line I was told from someone "neutral" was that it requested Wilde and Lowe to stand down and for Poortvliet to get the boot. Not sure what "stand down" entailed i.e. sell shares or just resign from the board. Coming the ther way was to be a new manager and a CEO (not Crouch). Assumed that it meant Crouch coming back on the board, but that was just an assumption. This was at least third hand I reckon, so I wouldn't be too sure about it's veracity.

The only dirty business that made Barclay's pull the plug was the dirty business on the pitch that impacted massively on the ££££'s flowng their way. The notion that someone was telling them to pull the plug (or doing the dirty) is fantasy stuff. They did it for there own reasons, pure and simple.

So how come you ended up with mutiple personality, mythomania and Ganser syndrome??? Maybe that's why you thought Justin Fashanu was still living it up:smt119 Nature or nurture????

Aware of that one (publicity stunt or genuine offer??? that one has been done to death), but I was on about a unilateral offer made prior to this. Might be wrong though, but sure it was mentioned on here. Tried a search but found nothing.

But I thought at some point (before Xmas) there was talk that Crouch had offered to inject £2m to stave off administration if Lowe and Wilde stepped down and Poortvliet was replaced. I'm sure someone even mentioned this in the form of a letter which was rejected by Lowe & Wilde. Can you remember that (or am I going mad)?????