um pahars

I didn't understand what he was going on about there. On one hand he's saying if a player wants to leave then there's nothing you can do, and then on the other hand he seems to be moaning that all these players left!!!!!! As you say, three, if not four of those moved for the lure of big wages and the Premiership (and arguably we were happy to bank the wonga for three of them, to stay afloat). (On top of that, I don't really think you can claim Jones was a product of the Academy, as he joined us from W Connection when he was about 20).

They're not majority shareholders. Wilde is the biggest shareholder with 16%. Lowe has just over 5%.

Not on a day to day basis they're not. Most have representation at board level, but out in the real world, shareholders own companies and paid executives run them (although of course there are exceptions). Even meglomaniac's or sole owners in football like Gaydamark, Mandaric, Sullivan/Gold, Abramovich, Gibson, Glazer, Gillet & Hicks all appoint people to run the football side of the business. I would argue that it worked last time for the first year (play offs, reduced costs, reduced debt), but also concede that when the parachute ended, the major shareholders really started squabbling and SISU turned up, then that set of Executives failed in those six months. So whilst I wouldn't employ Jim Hone again, I would not be averse to going out into the wider world and seeing if we can get someone in to run the Club on a porfessional basis. If the alternative is solely going through the same gene pool of shareholders, do the shareholders just take turns??? What happens when Lowe retires, do we go for a hereditary CEO (do we allow female succession)??? As for not having enough money to employ an independent CEO, we only need to find 60% of the wages (as Lowe is understood to be drawing 2 days a week - or is it more?). Just like paying some good money to get the best possible manager, I also think getting someone in such an important position is key if this Club is to move forward. Going cheap, or getting the wrong person in these two key positions may well prove to be a false economy.

Then get Cowen and/or Richards on as Non Execs and look outside the gene pool for a CEO. I have no idea why people think the CEO has to come from the shareholder base. In fact, most companies would probably appoint someone from outside to come in and run the Club. I have no problem with the shareholders sitting on the Board and there should be Non Exec positions for all of them, but there I fail to see why Lowe has to be CEO or Chairman. I personally don't think his record as a CEO is up to scratch and as for being a Chairman, well I think we can all see why he might not be the best appointment to take up a position of independence and be a figurehead of the PLC.

With all due respect your financial analysis is wide of the mark. Lowe did not leave this Club in a healthy financial state. Cast your mind back to that first year down and we had massive sale of players to pay the bills. We had Lowe being quoted as saying "We don't know where the next penny is coming from!". The accounts for that year showed we haemoraghed 9 million in cash on normal operations (even after getting a 7 million parachute). The idea that he left a robust, cash rich, forward looking business is a myth. The financials of this Club were holed below the waterline the minute we got relegated and tens of millions of revenue were lost. Some of the decisions over the last two years have not been good and have added to the inherent problem (including Hine's decision not to implement Plan B), but they are the drop in the ocean compared to the millions of revenue that we have lost when we got relegated during Lowe's tenure.

Your recollections are wrong (so maybe that's affecting your assessment of the current position). Wilde never intimated he would side with Lowe. He was always adamant that Lowe would have to go (remember cut the head off the snake on here). It was Crouch who considered a Board of Unity and was undecided up until the last minute whether or not to go with Wilde and his Board. Wilde didn't suck up with Hone, he headhunted and appointed him. He then didn't change sides, the entire PLC board would have voted him off if he hadn't jumped. And as I have said above, if you think dispensing with a Wildewill not affect stability, then you are somewhat naive. I would counter that the one individual bringing disharmony and unable to provide any stability in recent years is Rupert Lowe. Of course the 20%+ of that cabal should be represented at the Club, but that does not mean Lowe has to be CEO and/or Chairman. Richards or Cowen would be better candidates for being a representative, and for me an outside independent CEO would be best all round.

But if Wilde is not re elected you then have the largest shareholder out of the loop, which IMHO could then lead to more in fighting, which would hardly be the stability you crave. It would change all the dynamics. You can't demand stability on one hand and then say you wouldn't mind if Wilde goes!!! The only period where Crouch had his chance to do anything was January 08 to May 08. That's hardly a fair chance, so I'm not even sure it could be judged a success or a failure. Even then, the first part of his tenure was clouded by decisions made by the Execs and the latter part overshadowed by the cloud of Wilde and Lowe coming back in.

To buy out Lowe you have to have a willing seller. Crouch offered to buy Lowe's shares to remove him from the picture, but Lowe refused. But after that I'm not really sure of what your point is here. Mid season is not the best time to start restructuring for a number of good reasons (the window is shorter, contracts expire in the summer, you have no pre season to rebuild your team after selling players, games are thick and fast etc etc). The indecision when Burley finally left was definitely something that should have been handled better. I think He should have got someone in ASAP and not stuck with D & G for as long as he did. As for your second point, NP would never have had a chance no matter what he did at the end of that season. Lowe had a vision and it did not include Pearson, think you're being a bit naive to think Lowe would have stood by him. There's been a constant drip in various outlets attacking Crouch's tenure (mostly pretty unfair IMHO) and the Accounts barrage, plus another attack by Lowe on Sunday/Monday was probably the final straw. I think he's done well to hold his tongue for this long, considering some of the stuff said by Lowe & co. As much as Crouch might be considered a loose cannon, I think the way he has conducted himself since the end of the season has been pretty good (particularly when judged against the words and deeds of those who deposed him). His words today seem rather dignified when compared to some of the stuff Lowe has come out with since he first started sniffing around at the end of last season (Cowen and Wilde should be attempting to rein Lowe in as his outbursts are a continual string of own goals).

But if Wilde is nto re-elected, then doesn't that mean you will not achieve the stability you crave???

To be fair to Crouch I think he held his counsel for as long as he probably could. If he's as passionate as some say, then I imagine the old blood vessels have been close to bursting since he was booted out. I think he probably came to the end of his tether with Lowe's comments when the accounts were released last week and then by Lowe's further mud slinging in the local press about how he feels that the Man Yoo money was a mere drop in the ocen compared to all the money that had been watsed before his ressurection. If Lowe had been more restrained with his accusations, mud slinging and passing the blame and instead tried to be more concilliatory and interested in bridge building, then maybe Crouch would have maintained radio silence. Some subjective/dodgy bits in his interview, but then some other really good bits in there as well.

I bloody well knew Lowe would try and milk this fixture. We're not going to sell out with tickets at that price!!!!!!!!

If only it was that simple!!!! I've seen the David Luker quote, but have to say I'm not sure about it's veracity, as I just can't see that such a low figure would see us breaking even (even after allowinf for the savings made to date). Even with last years attendances, costs were 15million more than income. This year's attendances (and even the 17,000 figure) would mean that income would have fallen, and although we have saved money, I can't see how we haved saved that much!

We'll make something like half a million from this game. That's the equivalent of more than 2,000 extra punters for every home game we've played so far. We obviously need to scream & moan alot louder on here if an extra 2,000 punters for the first ten games is only a drop in the ocean!!!!!

I had him down as only having 5 league goals including the Derby one. Of which one was a penalty (although he should definitely keep practicising cos the Watford effrt was shocking!!).

Aha my little pet, whilst you've been abusing the main man Timmers, you must have overlooked my adoption of a new little favourite. You are no longer allowed to insult me until: a) your full quota has been used up in Cali, and b) Red and White Army gets the spanish archer (applications for a new pet will be taken in the New Year, at which point you will be welcome to apply - HTH).

Do you???? According to most on here, there are very few actual boycotters so it can therefore it can only be a quite a few of a very small number, in which case why are we starting threads on such an irrelevance?

Problem there is, as we found in the summer, there's not many buyers out there for this lot (John is in last year of contract so won't command a fee, it would probably be a big ask for someone to pay a fee and then the wages of Rasiak and Saga & you can only hope that someone sees something in Dyer). Hopefully the FA Cup windfall and 500,000 for Dyer will keep the wolves happy.

What channel we are makes no difference with what we do with our own hoardings, promotional deals etc. Hopefully we will get our share (45%) of a full house and I'd imagine prices won't be cheap. Hopefully we'll be on TV and for the last deal it was 150k per team (regardless of it being BBC or SKY), but think this one might be more. Then we get to sell pitchside hoardings at inflated proces, then there's probably a clause for existing sponsors that comes in to effect, merchandise, radio fees. It certainly won't pay off the overdraft!!!!!, but it might provide us with some breathing space, or at least reduce who we have to sell!!!!!

Guys, you're going to have to let this one go at some point. Supporters come in all sorts of shapes, sizes and degrees of loyalty. Our hardcore fanbase is something like 13,000 to 15,000. No amount of pontificating or moaning on here will change that. That is about the limit of our fanbase when the chips are really down, period, end of, full stop. To get above that we have to start winning games at home, scoring goals, riding up the table, pull in good draws in the cup and/or get promoted. We have to do something to tap into that middle layer of support and get gates something like 20,000 to 25,000 on a regular basis. Then after that we have to do something to tap into that top layer (who are really discerning) and get gates up to 30,000. The reason we did that against Bolton et al, was simply because we had 20,000+ season tickets, a large membership, tickets had a scarcity value, people got in the habit and large crowds drew in larger walk ups. No amount of moaning on here will get the missing 5,000 10,000 15,000 back.

Two quick points. Firstly, as we have seen, there is no guarantee of improving results. Secondly, hopefully the FA Cup windfall will provide some respite from the bank and will enable us to keep the side together for the rest of the season (and maybe even add to it in key areas).

Maybe, but if the players don't want to go (and Weston has stated that Lallana is in no hurry, and I have heard similar stuff about Surman) and the Club is in no hurry to let them go (as the windfall keeps the wolves from the door for a few months), then it can only be a good thing. Then maybe a good second half to the season might convince them not to leave in the summer, might increase attendances and season ticket sales which would in turn release the pressure from the banks in having to sell and so on. I hear what you're saying, but I think on balance I would have gone for this draw as it is a chance to kickstart the season.

Fair enough, I can only go on the games that I have seen. In a response my questions would be, did we look more threatening and look likely to score on the 2nd??? Athough you say we looked better with DMG upfront, does that say more about Robertson than DMG??? Do you see DMG as the man to lead the line for the rest of the season???

Try here: http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=5796 Good to see that an old institution has been reinstalled.

And maybe the windfall that is the United game might go some way to prevent the Club from having to cash in on him and others, which can only be good for both sides. I'd presume that all efforts will still be focussed on getting some money for those players on loan, but with contracts running down this might be difficult for some. And hopefully, the FA Cup money may replace this in their cashflow assumptions.

It's certainly worth a go. IMHO we look better when DMG isn't the sole player up top and it has to be said that neither Pekhart nor Robertson have played the role any better. I'd give it a go before the taansfer window, and if it doesn't come off would then give finding a player who can fit our style and lead the line on his own as a top priority.