um pahars

I know why you're thinking that, particularly given Lowe's personality traits, but I just can't see how he can ever be involved again!!!! His last stint ended in failure and the footballing decisions culminating in today's events should surely mean he has no place at our Club. I can understand your fears, and it did happen at Leeds with Bates, but i just don't think he will be involved again (fingers crossed anyway!!!).

Appointing Poortvliet wasn't the only option avaiable to him. I'm not really sure why people are still chipping away at each other as I understand tomorrow will show that Lowe has again failed us with the Club being put into administration. Whether or not points are deducted is a moot point and so although there is still an outside chance we will avoid relegation this econd stint by Lowe will also be recognised as another failure. We can dress it up however we like, some can even blame the grass roots suporters:rolleyes::rolleyes:, but once again it is those grass roots supporters who have been let down by those entrusted (and paid) to run the Club. We must try and move on from the Lowe era and somehow get this Club back on it's feet. If there is any upside from today it is that we may finally have a chance of ridding ourselves of all those who have taken from the Club and those who have let us down so badly.

I'm hoping for more than just another copy of the Stock Exchange Annuncement and something more atuned to the supporters, as opposed to shareholders, spelling out exactly what this means and what the next steps are. Nothing containing any sensitive information, but just something more open than the bland SE announcement.

That's an answer I don't have!!!!!!!!!!!!! Can only imagine it will be when the cheques start bouncing or Barclay's calls in it's overdraft!!!!!!!! My hunch would be that I don't think it will be long though and think they will either have to secure new funding (or get Barclay's on side) within days rather than weeks. The key deadline to get this sorted was 31/3/09 and maybe it's just taking longer than was anticipated (that's me trying to be optimistic!!!) and funding will be sorted out!!!!!

But if we can't "print" the accounts, because we have no support from Barclay's and no alternative source of funding, then effectively we are not a "going concern" and we do not have the cash to trade (pay creditor, wages etc) and therefore we will go into administration at some point in the not too distant future. This is not administration, yet, but it will be if we can't get new money in, or get Barclay's to change it's mind.

Aha, so my hunch last night was right in that the suspension has something to do with being unable to lodge the interims, which in turn is due to our inability to secure funding going forward (i.e. I presume we haven't been able to sweet talk Barclay's ). But being overly, overly, overly optimistic it doesn't mean we have gone into Administration (yet) and there is always the hope that we could find some other funding in the short term or have one last chance at sweet talking Barclays!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I thnk it's sloghtly different and why I still don't buy this idea that we can get away without a points deduction. It was Gudmundsson's company, Hansa, which went into administration and that was much more of a holding company than Southampton Leisure Holdings PLC is. The Football Club is really the only business the PLC has. West Ham PLC are the company that is the "member" of the Premier League and this was seen as distinct from Hansa, with a firewall between Hansa and WHPLC. Maybe we have created the same type of firewall, but I fear that the Football League will see straight through this.

I'm not sure he will listen.:confused:

I was thinking more of crossing everything and somehow pulling off a scam where the PLC goes in to admin and the football club does not, thus avoiding any points deduction. I can't see it could be done so maybe it's just wishful thinking on this dark night!!!!!!!

This is the bit I just can't buy here as to me the PLC and the Football Club are one and the same. I just can't see the CCC allowing this type of chicanery to go through (not that I don't want them to try of course). I'm presuming this will all have to be sorted PDQ as there is no way the CCC management and others will want this hanging around whilst they try and work out who actually has got relegated.

And it may make your Burnley day out very expensive as will be drowning my sorrows in a massive styleeeeee

Have I missed something????

Loose lips and not realising how quick news travels???? Also there's no damage done now as the market is shut and you might want a sympathetic media (i.e. The Echo) to be told tonight so they can tell your side of the story when the announcement is made. Here's another reason why shares could be suspended (i.e. it doesn't have to mean administration, fingers crossed anyway).: MILLWALL FOOTBALL CLUB SHARE PRICE SUSPENDED The directors of Millwall Football Club announced today that pending the refinancing of the company they have asked the stock exchange to suspend its shares. A statement said: "As in recent years, there was a funding requirement at the footballl club which had traditionallly been satisfied by the sale of players. The directors wished to refinance the club in order not to have to sell its best assets and this process has taken longer than anticipated." A further statement will be issued as soon as possible. Distributed by PR Newswire on behalf of Millwall Football Club

Well I don't like the fact that we should have released our interims at the latest today (I'm sure the rule is three months from year end whch was up today) and not sure whether anything should be read in to that delay. Other than that I'm just praying that it's for some other reason e.g. Birmingham suspended their shares recently when Brady and Sullivan were arrested (not that I'm suggestig Lowe and co are to be arrested!!!).

16. Suspension Shares in a quoted company can be suspended for two reasons: The company requests suspension If a company is about to announce news of material significance to investors and it fears that a disorderly market may be created by a leak, it can ask the London Stock Exchange to suspend trading in its shares until after the announcement. The most common reason for this is that the company is about to participate in a bid for, or by, another company. But there could be other reasons - for example if the company has unusually bad news (the MD has just fled to Brazil). The Stock Exchange frowns on long, voluntary suspensions. It takes the view that investors should always be able to sell unwanted stock, even at very bad prices. The Stock Exchange suspends trading This usually heralds very bad news, although suspension can also be the Exchange's only effective sanction against a company which persists in breaking its rules. Shares suspended by the Exchange find it hard to return to a full listing. Sometimes the company in question has gone bankrupt. In these circumstances, shareholders just have to grit their teeth and hope something emerges from the gloom.

But Adam Leitch reports in the Echo that: "Mark Wotte believes his side are better off without loan players as Saints prepare for the final run-in" Good work Adam, as sharp as ever!!!! Perhaps you meant "Wotte will now make do with what he has got after being knocked back".

Pensioners from 12:00 and Exit2 wants Pork Scratching's thrown in as well. I stand my bets and I expect you to be my Joey/waiter/piggy bank for a couple of hours!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Pulis signed something like two weeks after Davies had left for Stoke. If we had any sense we would have had a look at his medical report (and playing history!!!!) and said "Sorry, but the deal is off". Considering our latest policy is not buying/loaning anyone who isn't better than we already have, can someone remind WTF our transfer policy was last summer!!!!!!!!!!

Someone on here owes me a shedload of pints before the Burnley game as I think it's safe to say Pulis won't make 15 appearances this season!!!!!

But as we found out when we went for the cheap option with Poortvliet (and many of his signings) you often get what you pay for. If we can afford to pay Pulis not to play, then there must be some money floating around. Just as with the manager, the CEO is a pretty important position and not one that we should be scrimping about with. It's all about prioritising and I would put a decent CEO pretty high up on our shopping list, not least because we have seen what happens when you employ duff ones!!! I'd also argue that we could well do with someone at the Club on a full time basis devoting their full attention to the Club. I'd argue that the reason the football was crap for the first 30 games was more to with the decision to employ Poortvliet than to do with money. Let's not forget that the main reason why we are in the mire is down to the appaling decision to appoint Poortvliet. We had plenty of options and choices, and whilst money ruled out some routes we could have gone down, it didn't dictate that we had to go for the Revolutionary Coaching Set Up under Poortvliet. And going back to the OP, it is my belief that we should be doing whatever we can to avoid Administration and the dire consequences that will inevitably follow it.

I can certainly remember that Tranmere game when it all changed in the 2nd half;) Have to say I don't go in for the criticism of WGS on this thread. He had his gameplan, he had his style and he had his favourites, but under him we did very, very well.

Two words that display how the Chairman/CEO has a direct impact on how players play (and perhaps more importantly in what formation they play, who plays, coaching, training etc etc etc). Jan Poortvliet. Wouldn't call that being paranoid, and to assume who the Chairman/CEO is has very little with how players play is somewhat naive IMHO. With decisions such as the appointment of Poortvliet, the Chairman/CEO set the tone for the entire Club.

And what about the East Midlands??? Forest, Notts County, Leicester, Derby, Mansfield, Chesterfield have all had major financial problems (and most, if not all, have suffered relegation) in recent seasons. I think you'll find that most clubs outside the top flight (and probably some in it) are nto that far away from having (or have had) problems.

Personally, I never had a problem trying to learn new things from anyone and was open minded about SCW coming in to help, but once again the execution was poor. As you say Lowe's attempts/desire to get SCW and Clifford in to the hot seats really was pie in the sky thinking. Here is one of the articles where Clifford lifted the lid on Woodward for the Manager's role (or probably Head Coach under Lowe). http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2006/sep/08/newsstory.southampton

Sadly a few dinlo's fail to appreciate that subtle yet succinct difference, and continue to put down opposition of Lowe to reasons of ignorance, inverted snobbery and/or plain hatred, as opposed to a reasoned and well argued position.