um pahars

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.

So even if you doctor the figures attendances still rose, which makes your claim of : as still being wrong.:rolleyes: Wrong as it was a couple of months ago and still as wrong today.:---):---) Keep 'em coming troll boy;)

Pretty much where I stand. The League can easily hide behind the rules that would appear to state that clubs are proteced if only their holding company go into administration and not the club itself. Despite it being potentially farcial and the rules being too loose, there is a clear fallback position for the League to rely on in court. There is no subjectivity or interpretation in their decision, they're just applying the laws as they stand (as crass as they may appear to be). Although some others might have a moan, I don't see how you can argue that the rules haven't been applied coreectly (although expect them to changed staright after). But at the same time I can see the League invoking some catch all clause (15) (b) (ix) (app a) that overrules everything else as they can see that the situation is not what they intended regarding holding companies and soolvent football clubs. The problem with that is that they then open themselves up to question for being subjective and for interpreting the rules. Regardless of whether we could pull it off, we would most defintiely have a right for that decision to be questioned (although of course winning would beb a different matter as would peraps be funding a case). 50/50 split for me, but that's got more positive than when I first thought about it last week.

That would probably be much better value than the "attractive" football we have seen this season.

We did spend cash on share buy backs, and I'm sure it was a few million and we also saw cash go in the form of dividends, again a few million. Looking back maybe those sums could have been better used.

You were wrong last time and you're wrong again today. Keep 'em coming troll boy, this is like shooting fish in a barrel;)

bllocks

Two points: 1) I don't know why I'm bothering, but even if you take Sheff Utd out of the equation, then attendances still rose under Crouch. But that's spectacularly missing the point (something which you've become quite an expert on) as we haven't made any adjustments for the myriad of issues I mentioned above. If you want to use averages you don't then say I want an average without this, without that, add that back in, that's not fair. :rolleyes: 2) Attractive football under Poortvliet. Do me a favour. Of course it's all subjective and how you see football, but apart from a the odd good game and some pretty triangles in the middle fo the pitch (WGS would call it propaganda fotball) we were served up dross and ultimatley the table does not lie.:smt017

You had better throw Mark "everyone's got a soft spot for Bournemouth and always enjoy coming down here" Jackosn in there somewhere as he was in the Corporates yesterday doing his due dilligence!!! Whether that involves Beckham, Sheikhs, Barry the Briefcase and Saints Worldwide Inc, I do not know. I wouldn't rule out a Bransgrove involvement in there somewhere (more a sum of money as opposed to any active involvement). I also wouldn't rule out Lowe being involved in there group either. I also wouldn't rule out none of them coming off and having to resort to bucket collections, donations and some sort of big alliance between supporters and others to keep the club alive, at least in the short term.

And if you took out the Opening game and if you took out the game against newly relegated Wets Brom and what about the games against local(ish) opposition like Palace, Charlton and maybe even Cardiff. What about the number of evening games in both parts of the season? What about the effect on attendances in the second half of the season when we relatively sht and had just got dumped out of the cup by Bristol Rovers? If, what and my aunty having ******. If you want to talk about averages and make claims, then you have to be able to substantiate them (and not being rude, but you've asked exactly the same question before and you've received an answer. But then again going by your memory suggesting we played great football under Poortvliet, then perhaps I shouldn't be too surprised you can't remember).

Haven't we been here before LMFAO http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?p=221397&highlight=reappointment#post221397 Average attendance for the 11 games prior to Crouch's reappointment in Dec 2007 20,585 Average attendance for the 12 games under Crouch from Dec 2007 to May 2008 21867 If you're going to make such claims, then at least check they stand up to scrutiny. Keep 'em coming troll boy:---)

We indeed have no choice on this matter, as Lowe failed and delivered us into the hands of this nasty man.

But haven't you and others been saying that very often when you get youngsters from the top clubs (and Pearson has managed to pick up some from Arsenal and Liverpool as well), that their own clubs very often pay their wages;) I'd also say he must be doing something right and earning the confidence of others (as well as having good contacts) if he's convinced Wenger, Rafa and Ferguson to lend him their young stars. We can never say one way or the other whether Pearson would have been better or worse than Poortvliet (although i'm guessing only a total fckwit would plump for the latter), but it does highlight that Pearson has rebuilt his team, has played loads of youth players, has been successful (relatively speaking of course). Don't rewrite history nickh, because apart from the odd one off game we were sht under Poortvliet. The table does not lie. With the exception of 3 or 4 games, that period under Poortvliet was appalling. And there's nothing wrong with wanting a manager who is useless, out of his depth and ultimately terrible, to get the boot. Sometimes (as with Wigley) the error is not in sacking the manager, but in making such a fck up of an appointment in the first place. Off the pitch this season has been a nightmare under Lowe and it has been exactly the same on it, so let's not suggest Poortvliet wasn't that bad!!!!

Indeed it does, because IMHO the make up of the crowd's were so different. The Man Yoo game were those more interested in seeing the stars of Man Yoo than Saints. Not that they were Man Yoo fans, more that they were fans of the stars/celebrities. IMHO the make up of the crowd on Saturday were those who have grown disillusioned by Saints either due to performances or through being taken for a ride.