um pahars

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.

He's actually a very nice bloke and to be fair to him he was very much subservient to his previous bosses (Lowe and Hone, who despite coming from either end of the class spectrum shared many personality traits!!!!!). I accept there is the argument that as a PLC Director he shares a joint responsibility with his Board, but I also think it is fair to say that we haven't really held a fully functioning, democratic and responsible board for a little while now. I'm sure he has to take his share of the blame (and i'm sure he would accept that), but I also think he is quite a way down the list from the main suspects!!

No offence nickh, but like Frank you tried to jump into a debate that wasn't yours and started to try and move the goalposts (in addition to asking the same question you had asked only a few weeks earlier). It wasn't a debate on attendances, on whether they wold be higher or lower in the future, whether a) would have pulled more than b) as those type of arguments are merely hypothetical and never able to be proven one way or the other. I was merely countering the incorrect assertion by Sundance that attendances went down under Crouch when this was not the case. Were there a myriad of reasons for this??? Of course, some positive and of course some negative, but I was not going down the route of whys and wherefores, just merely pointing out that Sundance's original assertion was wrong. Of course if you wanted to suggest he was correct, then far enough, but to start trying to blur the issue is another debate entirely.

Absolutely. The most important person at any football club is the manager. Our insistence for going down the Revolutionary Coaching Set Up with an inexperienced (and hopeless) manager backfired massively. From then onwards it was game over with a losing team (particulalry at home) ensuring attendances were too low with a corresponding drop in revenue. We ended up in a viscous circle as opposed to a potential virtuous circle had we built on the relatively stronger position we had with Pearson in charge (who whilst no world beater, showed what he could do in his short stint here and has proved again at Leicester).

LMFAO. Was that the claim that Lowe had found external monies to the tune of £25m, or the subsequent claim that the "refinancing" brought £8m cash back into the Club. I was on the phone laughing with Dave Jones about most of your claims, and refuted them one by one on here. Maybe we should get Dave to get you to sit down before or after the next home match to set you straight. I'd be more than willing to arrange and help you out. He's a very amenable man (despite being left in the lurch by some shtty bosses over the years) and I'm sure he'd be more than willing to walk you through some of your more outlandish claims. If you want I'll have a word with him as he often walks past my place when he's out for a stroll.

So dumb that you haven't responded on the thread where you were found wanting regards (again) regards the overdraft LOL. http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?p=248979&highlight=overdraft#post248979 And in case you want just the overdraft figures: Interims - Overdraft when Crouch took over the reins: £6.1m Finals - Overdraft just after Crouch left: £5.7m Seems as though it's not only Sundance who doesn't know his increases from his decreases LOL;)

Which is fair enough, but then please don't jump in with your size 12's. This isn't about whether Crouch was the bestest or the worstest, whether Pearson is next in line at Old Trafford or Weymouth, whether we have the bestest fans in the world or the worstest. This was simply countering an incorrect claim that the dinlo Sundance has made (for the second time in a few weeks now) that attendances went down under Crouch, and for the second time I was happy to prove that this claim has no foundation. So cutting to the chase, do you think Flashman was right to state this was the case. Yes or No (and if no, then feel free to enlighten me with your reasons). If you're not that bothered with this debate then move along and jump in elsehwere. HTH

They do indeed, but it seems as though you've jumped straight in and fallen into the same dumb trap as nickh did.

I'm not putting my rosey specs on, but I think you've been too cautious there. Certainly we'd only regularly get 30,000 in the Premiership, but I can't help but think we could get 20k-22k (maybe even more) if we were all pulling together and just doing alright in this division. Impossible to prove either way, but I do think the Dell constrained our ability to get people in on a regular basis.

You just make obsevrations that are either (a) wrong or (b) lies :---) Keep 'em coming troll boy (and remember no more rude PM's please;))

Someone just PM'd me and likened it to the last stand at the Kehlsteinhaus. I couldn't comment ether way.

In which case get some Danone down you, as your gut is not working propoerly and certainly don't trot out: because whether you post as Flashman, The Bear, Sundance Or Nineteen you will only end up embarrassing yourself.:---):---):---) HTH ( until the next time you embarass yourself;))

My worry as well. Technically we are OK, but if there is the ability to invoke this type of clause then I think we may be up against it.