um pahars

Read the second paragraph and sht yourself when it comes to administrator's fees!!!!!!!! http://www.bournemouth.vitalfootball.co.uk/article.asp?a=111029 "Firstly for any prospective purchaser there are the fees for the administrator, at present in excess of £500k, though certain monies will have been used from the sale of Sam Vokes to reduce that, but clearly a substantial amount remains"

And what exactly does that mean? What limitations are there on transferring funds? What firewalls (if any) are in place? What is the end game? I'm not having a got you Derry, as you just seem to be in the firing line from us old whingers, but i just think these and other questions need to be answered by someone before money is blindly chucked around, and I wasn't convinced by Crouch's answers on the radio the other night. Believe you me, if someone comes out, explains the timeline and the strategy and how the Club would benefit from any of these schemes, then I would be up for helping out on any other them like a flash (I'd even do a sponsored spell if GM would sponsor me). But at the moment all I'm seeing is snippets of information and some mad running around. If anything, I actually think your idea of trying to establish an emergancy purchase fund if none of these other consortiums come through is the best thing I have heard in this area so far. Of course, it might be that the Administrator can't be saying much in case he reveals how insolvent the Football Club Ltd is, but I'm just not overly confident of people pouring money into a black hole for wat????

One can only presume you missed the joke and the reference to Barry's briefcase. I wasn't picking you up on your spelling dear chap, as you should know I really don't go in for spelling mistakes (viscous, vicious, visciousetc etc etc) because as someone else said on another thread being a pendant (sic) will come back and bite you on the ar5e on these message boards.

But on a serious note, I'm also sitting back as I want to understand just exactly what the situation is and what the due process is. I'm assuming by asking for all donations to go to SFC ltd they are attempting to establish a firewall as they are claiming that compnay is still trading OK. But can someone be clear about how this works, whether monies can or will be switched about, what this means in the next few weeks and then going forward etc etc etc??? I share some of your concerns, but I also understand the need to ensure the Club survives in some shape or form as I don't particularly think an AFC Southampton in the Jewson Wessex League is the best way forward. I also wonder whether the delaying of the points deduction decision and the sniffing aorund of the Leagues advisors are preventing some home truths from being spoken, as being honest I would have thought things would and should have been made quite a bit clearer by now (e.g. I had no idea where Crouch's we need £500,000 now came from and what it really means).

I presuming that's just a bigger case than is normal briefcase;)

Absolutely!!! The minute he started trotting out the "I'm hated because I'm called Rupert" line he lost all credibility. In fact it's actually a rather insulting claim, insinuating that those who judge him are doing it solely on the basis of his class. It's a lazy, sloppy, cheap and somewhat insulting claim that just because of someone's background, people will automatically judge them. I would say to Rupert, please don't judge us by your own very low standards.

My only concern Derry is that the PLC that might be ready to sue them and fight them all the way, may not be around for much longer!!!!!! I totally accept and agree that technically we remain within the rules and therefore should not get a points deduction, but having spoken to a few in the game (and sorry I'm not prepared to breach their confidence) they are also of a view that the League is very much like a Gentlemen's Club who can and will do whatever they want, and you will have to agree with it if you want to play in "their" League. They mentioned that the payment of all footballing debts when in administration goes against the grain (which is why HMRC always vote against the latest CVA's), but the League still manage to enforce it if you want to play in "their" League then you have to accept "their" decisions. I just don't see it as an open and shut case.

And ultimately it was a gamble that failed. I certainly don't buy the argument that there was no hope, or else why did he come back?? Of course it was a precarious position, and of course it would be tough, but it certainly was doable and that is why Lowe came back. Sadly Lowe failed in his attempt to stave off administration (and we're very close to failing on the pitch as well). We should have avoided administration at all costs, and even when the overdraft was cut back in Sept/Oct, we should have done everything and anything to adhere to these new lending limits. That could have included an "anything goes policy" with no sacred cows, be it the sale of players, sale of other assets, sale and lease backs, begging for money from people, forcing Crouch's hand just to raise some one off cash. OR even if the worst came to the worst arranging a pre pack sale achieved by other clubs, and I presume Derby did this in 2003 (effectively accepting administration as a last resort, but having already lined up a buyer so we go in to and then come out of administration almost immediately). I just don't think these last months have been handled very well at all off the pitch. It would almost appear that there has been an element of head in the sand and Barclay's won't pull the plug about it. And exactly the same can be said for on the pitch where terrible decisions from the off have impatced directly on attendances which have lost us ££££'s which could have ensured we stayed within our overdraft limits. I can't buy into the premise that we should have taken administration last May as everyone (inc Lowe and Wilde) were of the view that it would be possible to play and trade our way out. Administration should have been avoided at all costs.

That's what I was pinning any faints hopes on. Aviva have a track record of supporting clubs and appear to have a good relationship with the Club, and maybe we could even play a part by leaning on them if some carpetbaggers showed up. Additionally, Barclay's, despite their recent showings have an interest in football so fingers crossed there as well. Very, very faint hope though and until we start to see who emerges then maybe we should all just start praying!!!!!

Have you got an equivalent of this easy guide to administration that you could put up here???? A mate sent this to me last week and it helped outline a few details (but also left a few questions unanaswered!!!). http://www.linklaters.com/pdfs/publications/banking/Guidetoadministration.pdf

Crouch definitely denied that it on the Radio Hampshire phone in the other night. Why would he deny it?????

Who cares?????? But on a serious note, do we still play the Attacking Dutch Style 4-3-3 Totale Voetbal style???? Who was it who said players who play 4-3-3 are worth more LOL???

We lost many, many, many more people through poor football and results (particularly at home) than we ever did through boycotts. If we're going to blame an inidividual for boycotting, then I think it's only fair to first look further up the chain of command and see who has cost us thousands of bums on seats.

I almost liked bits of that Frank. As for the piece in bold, I was not wedded to Crouch staying, but I was most definitely wedded to the idea of Pearson staying. And of course we don't know what he could have done even if he was given the same hand as Poortvliet, but I also think it wouldn't be a totally unreasonable hypothesis to claim that Pearson would have got more out of the team than the useless Poortvliet did, even if it was under exactly the same conditions and constraints. But you can't ignore the impact the decision to boot Pearson out and replace with the Revolutionary Coaching Set Up has had on the Club this season. Of course it's hypothetical and subjective, but you don't need to be an expert to see it all went tts up and we suffered on and off the pitch because of it (hell if was working so successfully, then why did Lowe give Jan the El Bow).

A very big risk, with absolutely no element control of how the money is spent in return for such a large sum of money (particularly when referenced to the market "value" of the Club at the time) does not sound very attractive to me. And how's this for a little rumour that I know some on here are aware of (rumour mind, before we all go mental). I heard that there was a letter whereby Crouch said he would commit his £2m (no idea what form it took though) as long as Lowe and Wilde relinquished control and Poortvliet got the boot (and not sure if he was meant to replace them or whether someone else would come in to run the Club)!!!! Anyone else heard this?????

Something which IMHO Lowe and Wilde opposed, effectively giving Hone and co the green light to carry on regardless. Crouch doesn't get away scott free either, as he wasn't savvy enough to see that the Execs were taking control of the train set and drving it off in another direction. Lowe was complicit in the mistakes up to 2006, had some involvement in 2007 (re ruling out ousting Hone and co with Thompson & co and then the *****ing at Runnymede when a coup was being planned) and then instrumental after the summer of 2008 with the Revolutionary Coaching set up being a terrible mistake. In between a whole raft of people also contributed from Hone to Wilde to Burley to Crouch.

That's when decnet communication, honesty and empathy with the fans comes in to play. The very fact they haven't got that is also a problem in having them run the Club.

I never suggested Pearson was on the same as Poortvliet, but as you allude to later on, it was a false economy even if finances were the driving factor behind Pearson going (which IMHO they were not). You have to add in all the costs of such decisions!!! But it wasn't a financial decision. It was a footballing decision and the main driver for Pearson going was to bring in the Revolutionary Coaching Set Up. The fcat that we saved some money (although I'm not sure once you throw in Wotte, the Helmond fee and some severance monies for Jan) was a mere bonus.

None whatsoever. They quite rightly would not have got involved in that level of decision. Poortviet for Pearson was purely a footballing decision. A decision which backfired spectacularly which cost us £££'s this season. Rather than save us, that decision probably took us over the edge.

I'm sorry, but IMHO there was no financial reason why we had to kick Pearson out and get Poortvliet in. That was purely a footballing decision which spectacularly backfired costing us points on the pitch, bums on seats and £££££'s in the bank.

I would have countered that we have also seen the problems having "businessmen" run the club.

You're quite right nickh in that packaging it all up together is not really the same, particularly when in all of his high prfile TV and radio interviews the line he is spouting is that it happened when he was not on the bridge. In the interviews I have heard/seen he is absolutely adamant that the reason for our demise ccurred when he was away. I would disagree. I think his insistence that it had nothing to do with him just reinforces people's view on how delusional he is/was. Most people have always accepted that there have been many failings in recent years and many people should take their share of the blame, it is only a few loonies, and Lowe himself, who don't think some people are not to blame.

For example we should have accepted whatever was on offer for Dyer. On top of that I would have thought we could have raised a small sum to manage the overdraft. If we thought we could make £5m, then a £1millin reduction should have been possible. I'm never one for selling our talent, but I also accept our position in football and the fact that we will always lose our best players. If it's becuase they want to move on and are tempted by salaries we can't compete with then fine, or if it's also because the Club as a whole will benefit, then I'm also fine with that. If someone said we ahd to lose Dyer and Lallana to keep afloat, I would have accepted that.

Indeed, when he gets on to the Barclay's bit, then it would be hard not to agree with his sentiments. I think what they did to us mirrors the bank's overall contribution to the wider world in recent years and they have a alot to answer for. There is also some turth regarding some of the decisions made during his absence (mainly when the parachute payment ran out), but then he just proves how out of touch he is by blaming everything on that 2 year period, conveniently forgetting what happened in his tneure before he left in 2006 and what has happened since he returned.

Wey hey, I agree with you. What is the world coming to?????? There were some very poor decisions post May 2007 (and those people should also be held to account), but his desire to blame all of our ills on that one/two year period, conveniently ignoring the mistakes pre and post that era just show him up to be somewhat deluded. These interviews have had nothing to do with Saints and all to do with Lowe, Lowe and Lowe.