um pahars

And as we have so clearly seen in recent years, even if the fans turn up up in sufficient numbers and the income is healthy, then the Club will only survive if it is run in responsible, competent and efficient manner. It doesn't matter how many are coming thorugh the turnstiles if those in charge continue to make mistakes and run the Club poorly. PS Here's another bit on why blaming the fans is somewhat irrelevant: We're not a proper big club, we're a mid ranking provincial club who can pull in 30,000 in the Premiership and anywhere between 15,000 to 25,000 in the second tier (depending on a number of factors). I really struggle to understand why people cannot comprehend that attendances are not fixed and they will indeed vary depending on success, the division we're playing in, the opposition, prices and a whole myriad of other factors. We probably have something like 14,000 hard core supporters (just as every club has its hard core). After that just like any other club (with the odd exception) our attendances will only increase if the next tranche of supporters see a reason to come. You can whinge, whine, scream and stamp your feet as much as you want, but that's just the way it is. The Club has no divine right to expect supporters to turn up, in fact as is the case in every City, town and community up and down the country those that attend football matches are the minority.

Sadly Duncan it would appear that some people are even willing to tarnish the name and reputation of a fine gentleman from our past in order to score some cheap points in the current situation. I have seen it mentioned that some believe that Jacksons Farm was talked up by some who wanted Mary Corbett to gain some extra kudos from this benevolent act by her father. Well forgive me for saying this, but wouldn't you be rather stupid to assume Mary Corbett has uber status just because of benevolent acts by har father 50 years earlier???? John Corbett is deserving of his praise, by why would/should that translate into praise for Mary Corbett - a ridiculous notion. In fact I would call it slightly paranoid that some think benevolent acts of 50 years ago are being used by some to give them some kudos in the current time!!!!! Mary Corbett never used "Jackson's Farm" to gain any kudos (and if she tried to, then she should have been laughed at), in fact, in the first interview I heard her give, she was upfront, open and honest that it was not a donation, but instead it was sold to the Club on favourable terms. From the research I have found, John Corbett played a major part in keeping this Club afloat in the 1950's when we slid back in to Dvision 3 South, often paying the players wages from his own pocket (there are some very interesting quotes from Brian Hunt reflecting on this period about how John Corbett effectively saved this Club from going back to being semi-professional). I also understand that the sale Jacksons Farm to the Club was done on very favourable terms for the Club, at cost price and interest free a number of years after John Corbett first acquired it (therefore hardly favourable to himself). Judge Mary Corbett by her own deeds and actions, but trying to downplay the service given by her father, because you believe (incorrectly IMHO) that she is getting some mileage out of it is somewhat cheap IMHO.

We're not a proper big club, we're a mid ranking provincial club who can pull in 30,000 in the Premiership and anywhere between 15,000 to 25,000 in the second tier (depending on a number of factors). I really struggle to understand why people cannot comprehend that attendances are not fixed and they will indeed vary depending on success, the division we're playing in, the opposition, prices and a whole myriad of other factors. We probably have something like 14,000 hard core supporters (just as every club has its hard core). After that just like any other club (with the odd exception) our attendances will only increase if the next tranche of supporters see a reason to come. You can whinge, whine, scream and stamp your feet as much as you want, but that's just the way it is.

Here's a link for the listed Clubs: http://www.footballeconomy.com/stats/stats_turnover_09.htm and as you can see it is most definitely a minority of league clubs (and getting smaller). Then put that against that all the Clubs who have developed or built their stadiums afresh and you have to ask yourself how they managed it if they're not on that link???? Of course some managed to find sugar daddies, nice councils or whatever but there are still a number of other clubs who raised funds without being listed. Two that spring to mind are Norwich and Ipswich. Norwich for example managed to raise a £15m securitisation loan without a listing fairly recently. Ipswich also managed to get £25m with a subsidiary of Norwich Union. But I go back to when I spoke to David Jones (a year or so ago) who was most definitely at the sharp end in the late 90's when we were arranging the loans/funding etc and he was of the view that the full listing was not a pre requisite to access funds at that time.

You had better watch out what you mean by PLC's (as the pendants [sic] will be out in force). Would I be right in assuming you mean listed Clubs???? But if you look through Simon Inglis's book on Football Grounds and just go through the league tables you will see that many clubs were finding it fairly easy to secure loans, outside investment etc from a variety of sources and channeled into Clubs with a variety of ownership structures to get grounds built. I would actually say that it is a minority of Clubs who play in older/non developed stadiums nowadays. In the top flight - Everton, Fulham and Portsmuff. Off out to play cricket, but we can carry this list on I'm sure.

Heres how our Operating Costs stacked up for each Y/E: 2006 (Lowe) = £33m 2007 (Wilde/Hone) = £27m 2008 (Hone/Crouch) = £27m So it's not that our costs spiralled out of control, it is that in the 2008 period we lost another tranche of income (the parachute money) and the costs were not brought down in line with that.

I think it probably came around too quickly for them to make a decision one way or the other. IMHO they can play it by the rule book and let us off (but they want to make sure they do not open themselves up to attack from the other 71 members) OR They can invoke some catch all clause (but in this instance they need to make sure they're watertight from attacks from us). I think they probably know what they want to do, it's just they're now working behind the scenes trying to justify that decision and making their case watertight.

On this issue and with reference to our credit rating, when I spoke to Dave Jones he didn't believe that our FTSE listing was a major factor in arranging the finances for St Mary's. Many other Clubs managed to raise finances through and from a variety of sources and means, and the overrinding factor at that time was the money coming into the game, primarily through televison rights. Around that time Football Club, with a variety of ownership models and shareholdings, were the darling of many instituitions (including the media giants) and a Listing was not a pre-requisite to access theses funds.

Absolutely, and within reason, if the League want to do something they will be able to do it. If you don't like the League rules you can always go and find another League to play in. But if you do want to be in their Club, then you have to accept what they dish out.

Too little, too late. Administration should have been avoided at all costs and I just get the impression that we had our head in the sand thinking Barclay's wouldn't foreclose. It looks as though we just blindly walked into administration.

So when you were waxing lyrically about the bright future under the Revolutionary Coaching Set Up and berating me for suggesting the guy was out of his depth, what you really meant was: "we're playing stylish football, but the dice have alrwady been rolled and we stand no chance, it will all soon go tts up, we might not finish the season, we will still go into administration, we're giving it a go but it ultimately it just wasn't meant to be".:^o Lowe came back to save the Club, and the same people who were championing him and his Revolutionary Coaching Set Up are now saying, it was a fait accompli, the dice had already been rolled, it was never ever salvageable, this season meant nothing in reality.

Do you want to go and check your diary????? Because I vividly remember telling someone at the Fanfs Forum in march that Wilde and Lowe had temaed up a while back and were mounting a come back and your meeting was way before this. - but now you've gone off on a complete tangent. This was about why none of the potential bidders came sniffing during Crouch's tenure.

I have no problem with "him" whatsoever. It's not in the slightest bit personal, I've just judged him by his results. When he did well, I praised him (cut to GM who can put hat post up from a few years back) and when he did poorly I criticised him. I don't doubt for one minute he thought he was doing the right thing, and in a way that is one of hs problems, in that he is also so arrogant that he probably often thinks he knows best, only to be found wanting. I'm only looking at this with reference to his performance at the Club I support. I'm sure that if i met him in a different setting he would be a fairly interesting character, but perhpas not someone I would want to go on holiday with. I don't doubt that one or two class warriors have had it in for him from the off, but then there is no reason to trade off of this and try and tar us all with the same brush. With every interview, he just makes it even clearer that he really has lost it.

Crouch was never on his own long enough to get anything done. The minute he froze Wilde out of the boardroom after kicking out Hone & Co, the 42% were out there making their move (when did you meet with Wilde????) and trying to get Lowe the Saviour back on the throne.

Came to nothing though!

As has been shown on the rather parochial and insular Island of Portsea, if people deliver success than any manner of backgrounds and personality traits are soon forgotten. No one had a problem when Lowe was doing well, and fair play to him, but when he went past his sell by date people began to realise he was a lost cause and a weight around the Club's neck. He was called Rupert back around 2002/3 when we were successful and no one (except a rabid mnority) had a problem with his name or class back then, and the only reason he is not wanted now is for the complete opposite reasons i.e. he's not been successful. The tag of Toff, Duck Off etc etc etc only then really came about when people had to start coming up with comic style insults for him. I have heard nothing that would indicate we would have gone under last summer had Rupert not come back. Nothing whatsoever, and you can be assured that had Lowe heard the same snippet, then he would have been using it to his full advantagelast summer. We had just been given the support of the Bank, maintained our Championship status and ended the season with a sell out crowd. In relative terms, there was a small ray of light peeking through the dark clouds. Wasn't to be???? So booting out Pearson and the appointment of the Revolutionary Coaching Set Up was giving it a go and it just wasn't to be. That decision cost us points on the pitch and ££££££'s off it as attendances fell. Just wasn't to be:rolleyes:

Exactumundo!!!!! And I'm not sure which ine is worse (probably the latter for me if I had to choose).

Who is to say that some weren't knocking around but getting nowhere witht the then current board;) How many of us (and therefore others) saw Administration coming so quickly after coming through the transfer window with no sales, positive comments regarding the Creditor's ongoing support etc etc etc. And why didn't Lowe and Co try to sort out a Pre Pack when they finally saw the writing on the wall by trying to search out these interested parties. IMHO These last few months have not been very clever on or off the pitch.

Someone should ask The Farmer to superimpose Lawrie and his picture on to the backgrund of that Lowe and his train picture he mocked up!!!!

100% agree, but my concern is that the League will see right through this ruse (with the support of the other 71 clubs), and implement some other punitive measure and basically say to the Football Club, this is the deal, if you want to play in our League you have to accept this ruling.

But it is my understanding that due to this "League" rule whereby all footballing debts have priority status and have to be settled, it effectively puts these creditors at the head of the queue, which is what HMRC object to (as they recently lost their equivalent priority status) and hence why they always currently vote against CVA's. So my point is that the League can make up their own rules, and enforce what they like, how they want and when they want (within reason of course) and if you want to play ball you have to accept them.

I'm split between thinking what a complete twt he is if he really thinks that is the primary reason for people disliking him, wondering if he really is delusional and how lucky we are to be rid of him, wondering whether he is on a deliberate Sundance style wind up or thinking if that's really how he believes many supporters think, then how the hell did we survive so long with that type of attitude. How did he ever manage to conivnce people that he should come back????

The reason I mentioned it was due to seeing the following two notes in recent accounts: Note 11 Properties of the Group with a net book value of £34m are subject to charges held by Barclays Bank PLC and the loan note holders. It's obvious regarding the loan note holders (Aviva), but was unsure what the Barclays bit referred to???? Was it the overdraft (we've often used one in the past)???? or were Barclays who we borrowed the £1million loan from in 2003 and so that's why they're mentioned here? Note 18 The bank overdraft, loans and loan notes are secured on freehold land and buildings (see note 11). So here it specifically states that the overdraft is secured against assets, hence my earlier post.

And of course we must also remember his and others support during some very dark days in the 1950's when John Corbett very often paid the players wages out of his own pocket. I'm sure it was said by Brian Hunt this was an act that he reckoned saved the Club from turning semi professional (with the associated downward slide it would have brought). Going slightly off on a tangent, but then again we do find ourselves in a very similar position 50 years on, so let's hope there are still some generous benefactors around this time.