um pahars

I haven't got a clue when it comes to statistics, just a little bit more knowledge than Flashman/Sundance or whoever he is this week (which isn't that difficulT) and I do just a little bit more research than Jonah who has all of a sudden gone quiet on the overdraft front;) Correct on all 4 fronts, although my success rates on (2) being a bookie and (4) an eye for figures haven't been up to scratch recently;) Anyway, I think we should all be moving on and trying to work out exactly who is doing what and what we should be doing (if anything), as I don't think anyone has really answered what the current situation is ref donating, not donating, chipping in to a consortium, etc etc etc. I wonder as to whether the Administrator is keeping quiet for fearing of alerting the League to how skint the Football Club is, as I'm still not sure what to make of the Crouch revelation that we need £500k just to fill a hole.

As SW11 points out, I think the vast majority of people on here (a) don't think Pearson is the greatest (but maybe a better bet than Poortvliet), (b) don't think Crouch is not to blame for anything (many, including himself have admitted he ccked up over some things) © don't think Lowe is to blame for everything Although things get heated on here, the vast majority of people are fairly balanced in their views, although as is the case in everyday life, those at either extreme seem to attract the most attention.

Will be interested to use the time to try and drum up interest to get supprot for helping get the Club out of the mire, or whether it will be another attempt at saving face and blaming others. I will not pre judge him and await his interview with interest.

Plus you have to let me know what games you don't want to include so that you ensure you get the answer you want;) We can even do a "one game average attendance" if you want (some people call this one the "Official Attendance":D)

I'm not exactly fond of throwing money into a bottomless pit, and I think there might be an argument for keeping your powder dry until a later date. But if no funds are forthcoming, will we fulfil our fixtures? What's the punishment if we don't? I presume it means the Club will definitely be in administration, points deducted and relegation and what then? But I can see both sides, and we do have to ensure we see this season out, which is why I would still like some clarificiation, as the administrator, on the link I put up, didn't sound as desperate! I agree that it has not been made clear and as I said when I first heard Crocuh mention the £500,000 required, I said "good or bad, I need to have a think about it." But maybe he's thinking in much the same way as you are, in that by putting the money in now means it is going to the wrong person and you get nothing for your buck. I think had the others come up with the money, then he would have maintained (if not increased) his shareholding and perhaps the Club would be viable and therefore his money may have had some worth going forward. So who's to say that he will be happy to put it into a consortium going forward, just not straight into the boliers at SMS???

I think he did his best to try and stay forward looking despite almost everyone else bar Stewart Dennis wanting to rake up the past. I think he must have said to every caller who were dwelling in the past, as well as Mark Dennis, that we have to look forward, and he almost achieved that all of the time thourghout the interview. I think he only slipped when he was really pressed by Dennis or callers pushed it too far, but for me his motivation was to get this Club out of, hopefully, a temporary abyss.

But I think they will make their decison one way or another fairly quickly, but I also agree that it could then drag on from there. However, have the League or the FA ever backtracked in this area once they have made a decision?

I don't think anyone has said it will be definitive one way or the other, but I can't see it dragging on as it will definitely impact on the relegation battle.

And as I said elsewhere how about similar (or at least a contribution) contributions from Lowe, Cowen, Wiseman, McMenemy, Hone, Hoos, Wilde etc etc etc.

This has certainly been doing the rounds, but as I said a week or so ago, no one has ever quantified or substantiated it. Not sayin it's true or not, just saying no one has put any factul evidence up here (or on any equivalent).

So under your rules where you can use an average of one game, then the average attendance for the first game was 23,000 and the average attendance for his last game was 32,000. HTH;)

Somewhat different motivations though. Whilst Lowe looks to be trying to justify himself and is happy to drag up the past, Crouch is looking forward and trying to drum up the cash needed to keep this Club ticking over. On almost every occasion on the radio tonight Crouch tried keep it forward looking and tried to avoid getting dragged into raking up the past. What would be a lovely touch would be for Wilde, Cowen, Wiseman & Lowe to also match Crouch's money to ensure we still have a Club to sell.

And I'm also sure that one of the reasons for the low take up for this season was the fact that last season was so poor. How many and how persuasive this reason was will never be proved. (PS You're quite right as well in that I doubt Crouch had any real affect on ticket sales, but I'm also quite right in that Sundance's assertion was ppopycck;)).

I would venture that he doesn't want to put the full whack in as he knows it goes straight to the administrator to pay the bills and he will never see it again. The fact is that this £500,000 is effectviely being burnt just to keep SMS ticking over, but of course the other side of not doing it is the football club getting burnt to the ground. What's interesting is that this message hasn't come from the Administrator and in the last three paragraphs of this piece Mark Fry doesn't seem as emotive as Crouch. http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/news/?page_id=11604

Can only presume you don't get Radio Hampshire where you live or else you would have heard Crouch say that this money is needed (half a million of it) just to see this season out!!!!! No return for it, nothing to show for your donation/gift apart from ensuring the Club stays afloat. Good or bad, I need to have a think about it.

LMFAO. How the fck can you have an average crowd after one game :rolleyes: I think you'll find the average would be the same as the actual attendance:smt017. So now we're backtracking and looking at individual games. You couldn't make it up fella. Last game before Crouch took over was 18,125, and then for Crouch's first game it jumped to 23,267. Look how wonderful Crouch is:rolleyes: Then it went down to 23,008 and then down again to 18,148. Look how bad Crouch is :mad: Then it went shooting up to 25,449. Look how brilliant Crouch is:D And of course we all know it ended on a high with 32,000 turning up, but we're not allowed too include that one are we? Facts are that during Crouch's reign, avearge attendaces went up when compared to the proceeding games of that season (and still rose even if you start fannying about and excluding certain matches:)). Barrel and fish.

That's not very helpful is it!!!!!! they just had a Leeds fan on Radio Hampshire having a moan about how Leeds suffered from the Football League's exceptional cirumstances clause. This was on a BBC site back in August: "The Football League Board agreed that, notwithstanding the manner in which this administration has been conducted, the club should be permitted to continue in the Football League," said a statement. "Consequently, the board has decided to make use of the 'exceptional circumstances' provision within the League's insolvency policy, for the first time, and agreed to transfer the club's share in The Football League to LeedsUnited 2007 Ltd. Accordingly, the club's share has now been transferred." However, it is acknowledged the club did go into administration and has been unable to comply with the terms of the League's well-established insolvency policy. As a result, the board determined this transfer of membership should be subject to Leeds United having a 15-point deduction applicable from the beginning of the 2007/08 season." I'm not sure whether this means the exceptional circumstances was to do with allowing the transfer of the share in the League allowing Leeds to stay in the League or whether it was used to give them another points deduction. My worry is that this "exceptional circumstances provision" could be used as a catch all to ensure we get a deduction.

Beggars may not be able to be choosers I'm afraid. If Lowe does come in with some serious backing, then there's nothing to stop that happening and arguably if the alternative is the Club folding, then it may have to be something that has to be swallowed.

I honestly wouldn't rule it out. I reckon Lowe will be hurting (as I think him doing the media rounds is showing) and I reckon he still thinks there is some unfinished to be done. Throw in he has some rather rich buddies and an inside track on some of the issues and it is plausible. Maybe him doing the media rounds is a PR exercise in trying to deflect blame ready for another comeback?????

Or maybe even a vote loser!!!

OK, I'll change the words just for you: That's exactly what you claimed, which is not correct as attendances went up when you compare Crouch's reign with the reign that preceeded it. HTH:wink:

That's exactly what you claimed, which is not correct as attendances went up when you compare Crouch's period in charge with the period that preceeded it. HTH;)

I'm almost going to sit on the fence here. Part of me thinks that if the Council can get the stadium on the cheap from a desperate buyer, then it could actually be a sensible purchase. Set it up as a real community asset and it might even pay for it's self. Two problems though. Firstly, I'm not overly comfortable that the Council should be bailing out someone elses mistakes (particularly when they were made by a commercial organisation) and I also don't agree with selling off the family silverware to bail out a failed Club (after all we've been selling the family silverware ourselves for years now and look where that got us). If the council was flush with money following a blinding investment (as Daren mentions was the case at Hull), then I think it might be up there with some other decent shouts for a legacy pay out, but considering we are in the midst of a recession/depression and there are a myriad of other competing causes, then I think the idea of cashing in our heritage to prop us up is asking too much IMHO.

I totally agree, just merely pointing out that over that period something around £6m went out the Club this way. Perhaps that money would have been better off reducing some of the indebtedness, and only a perhaps mind, as I'm sure there are a myriad of different views and priorities on this one (as well as the stadium "loan" probably having certain restrictive clauses attached to it) And as someone else pointed out the other day, we entered into a 10 year £1m loan in 2003 at the same time as we were using £1.1m cash to buy back shares from the market. We're still left with half of that loan, but of course no shares!!!!!!!

Very good spot. Here's some words from the Echo regarding this: He was appointed a director on the football board and given a three-year contract to run the Ambassadors Club and to try and attract back corporate hospitality customers who had walked away from the club. Lowe and Wilde wanted him to continue in his contracted ambassadorial role but McMenemy, who played a key role in the appointment of Nigel Pearson, felt it would be hypocritical of him to do so and has resigned from the post, with his contract officially cancelled at the end of its second year, which falls next month. Football board chairman Wilde confirmed the club's position and said they will now look for a figurehead to take over from McMenemy. "We were happy to have Lawrie for the other season on his contract and not only potentially just that but if it went well to renew it as well," he said. Personally, I remain to be convinced that it was value for money (although Andy Oldknow was adamant it was self financing and sales had been pushed up by this initiative), but I'm not sure it can be used as a stick to beat Crouch with when Lowe and Wilde were apparently happy to continue with the arrangement (and even be up for extending it). Just some more double standards on here though I suppose.