um pahars

Absolutely. Stoneham was financially viable before these extras were added on by Lowe, it's just he and others thought it would be even more lucrative with these extra bits bolted on. In a way I can't fault him for trying!!!!! EBC would probably have been OK (or at least they were warming to the idea) to the lesser commercial development, but once HCC went to the Tories, they were never going to pass it. As Hunt mentions, the Club were still hoping Stoneham might come off right up until SCC bailed them out.

And at that time I spent many a long phone call talking to Keith House. If my memory is right he was living in Hedge End at the time and at one point he was moaning about Green Belt land being used. I did point out that Hedge End was a few farms until his and other houses had been built on it and in usual politician style he sort of waffled on and on and on (but that's a seperate story). EBC had swayed to and fro with regards the stadium, and as Full Time At The Dell states that in 1997, "Eastleigh, under the leadership of of Keith House, were now getting enthusiastic about it". As you say the notion of adding bits on certainly didn't appeal to EBC (particularly when they had their own ideas for a cinema and other bits), but that was just Lowe trying to get greedy. The numbers worked without these new add ons which EBC didn't like and there were other ways of generating the extra revenue required to make it work (yes U & A, I did see quite a few of the documents, including the novel idea of having SCC, the Club and others running it as a joint venture which got it over a number of public funding hurdles), Lowe just thought he saw an opportunity to make some extra money. The final problem came when the Liberals lost power at HCC in 1997 and the Conservatives (who had always been against the development) took over in Winchester. Hunt, the builder/Director was heavily involved in finding a new stadium and in the same book it says: "Hunt is fully convinced that, had the Liberl Democrats remained the majority party in Hampshire, Stoneham would have gone through, but as soon as HCC came under Conservative conrol .......... 'It wasn't dead, but it was most unlikely to go ahead' ". The book goes on to say that despite the setbacks, "The board had not given up on Stoneham", and whilst Stoneham was still being comtemplated (despite it appearing increasingly remote), Hunt explains that "SCC stepped in and said, 'you aren't going to get anywhere with this' and offered us the St Mary's site". Llowe and the board did not pull the plug on Stoneham, it was effectively kibsohed by the Tory controlled HCC, and the Club were still actively trying to find ways of getting it done when Arnold, Whitehead and others offered them the gasworks.

Thanks for clearing that up GM and good to hear you're back safe and sound!!!! It's a well established fact that EBC and HCC between them pulled the plug on the Stoneham Project, for a number of reasons (and not all of them just linked directly to the extra bits added on by Lowe).

I think it's an upfront and welll deserved compliment. The performance on the day was very impressive (particularly the first half) and given they are a very strong side with an excellent home record, scoring for fun and well in the hunt for promotion, whilst we are at the opposite end of the table, an away win was a very impressive achievement. Obviously, the fact that we were such underdogs makes the result even better, but then again it also shows us up as not being very good this season, so maybe their is an element of it being a backhanded compliment as well!!!!!

Once again your lack of knowledge of a particular area is shown to be so wanting? Lowe did not pull the plug on Stoneham. You either have no knowledge on this subject and are just making it up as you go along, or you have a very poor memory. Go away and do some research before you add to debates about which you have no knowledge.

Well, I imagine keeping Pearson would have been a start. After that, Pearson and Crouch were acutely aware of our financial position and the need to restruture. Here's some words from Pearson, which make it clear that he was aware of the financial constraints he would have to work under, but how he still felt he could improve the team: "It will be a combination. The reality is there will be comings and goings, there is no doubt about that. Economics will play a part and there will be some natural wastage as players come to the end of their contracts. Then it will be a case of finding players who fit the bill. We need a side capable of getting success but which fits in with the financial situation. But we are not going to be splashing fortunes on players. Even in the short time I have been here, I have been looking to see if we can get players on loan. Short-term is the immediate priority but I am looking long-term too." Crouch's agreement with the bank was essentially the same as what has been agreed by Lowe, in that we have to meet certain milestones, can't breach certain covenants etc etc etc. He would be acutely aware of the repercussions of not meeting the criteria laid down by the bank. And going back to Pearson, he was also up for using the Academy and the youth players in the future (although I doubt he would play as many as Jan did at tmes). "A lot of my background is working with youngsters. I worked with the England youth teams for three years and I see the Academy as a massive part of the club. I have worked at clubs where the academy and first-team are separate entities and not integrated at all and those clubs are the poorer for it. If you put the right effort into recruiting and developing the right players then it can save the club a lot of money on transfer fees." Quite simply, changing managers, "going for this revolutionary coaching set up", getting in 12+??? new players, team tactics, priorities etc etc etc clearly show that we still have/had options. Whilst conditions may dictate some of the things we can and cannot do, there is enough flexibility to do things differently. Would it be as successful, or even better or worse, who knows, but we did have choices to make (and indeed those at the top made a number of choices).

Didn't realise it was that bad until I just saw the news!!!!! Hopefully, if he's following England, he'd have moved on by now.

You'll just have to trust me on that one;) A few others on here are aware, even a few who don't like me:mad:

They weren't pandering to the fans. They and many others were using their shares in a democratic, rational and normal manner to remove a CEO/Chairman and board that had failed to deliver and had cost the Club millions in lost revenue due to a number of very poor decisions (decisions that you yourself criticise later on). Frankly, I'm surprised that given the number of poor decisions and the huge cost to the Club that they weren'te removed earlier. You are either unaware of the background regarding the Stoneham project or side steeping some very well known events. I can only suggest you can and have a read up about how the goalposts were moved allowing EBC and HCC to start pulling the rug from under the project. Once again, you are either unaware of the history and timeline of SMS or are being obtuse with regards the role played by SCC, the local MP and local councillors. Lowe, Cowen and others did a good job delivering the stadium on time and within budget, but you cannot ignore the fact that the new stadium project was rescued by SCC and other parties. Crouch did not increase players wages. Players wages went up in the period from Jul 07 to Dec 07, at which point the Club was run by Hone & the Executives who had a cabal of 5 votes against 3 Non Execs. A slight contradiction saying he knows his stuff financially, when in the same sentence you highlight his deficiencies which have cost this Club millions. As CEO/Chairman last time he oversaw some appalling footballing decisions which ultimately cost this Club millions. Matters on and off the pitch are intrinsically linked as can be seen by his decision to go with thos "revolutionary coaching set up". I think the majority of supporters appreciate the tough position we find ourselves in. However, knowing that doesn't mean you have to blindly accept every decision taken as being "the only option available". The most obvious point in case was dispensing of Pearson and bringing inthe "revolutionary coaching set up". He indeed made too many poor managerial decisions in his last sojourn, so I think it is perfectly acceptable to be against his reappointment due to this poor track record. A track record that cost us our top flight status on the pitch and millions off of it. You can bluster all you like about getting behind him, but the proof of the pudding is in attendances. The 13,000 there last night shows that many are failing to heed your call either as a conscious decision, or are they are failing to heed your call as they don't find what is being served up as being worthy of their cash. I have seen 2 1/2 games out of about 11 that have been good. I have seen numerous home defeats or draws. I have only seen one win at home. I have seen us spanked. I have seen us defend like schoolkids and I have seen us unable to hit a barndoor etc etc etc. Sure I appreciate the youngsters skill, effort and willingness, but ultimately that needs to be translated into points. Jan's points per game ratio is still below Pearson's (which was no great shakes BTW).

Good old supply and demand. The jocks wanted Burley and were prepared to pay for their number one choice. Ipswich wanted a goalkeeping coach, but weren't prepared to pay a wedge for him. We got greedy and thought there was a finite supply and that Webster was really in demand.

But when you want them to go and they themselves want to go, then it might appear sligtly greedy to demand a fee to top off the savings you will soon be making. As it turned out, the compensation was turned down and we instead had to continue paying Webster. The three options were: Best case: Get compo and save money Middle way : No compo but agree to release and save a pot of wages Worst case : See out contract Looks like we ended up wth the worst case scenario.

In my post Reading analysis I was also saying we need a tougher presence in the middle of the park, someone who can stick their foot in, but who can also play a bit as well. When these games get tough, we just need a bit of a bruiser in the tackle.

Apart from their left midfielder, I'm afraid to say I thought they were no great shakes!!!!! Their right back (Des Walker meets Mark Stein) was absolutely terrible and would have thought we should have let Lallana have a run at him. They played with one up front, but certainly pressed us hard in the second half as I think they thought they had a chance of getting all three points after the break.

4 points from two games isn't disastrous and with Charlton losing and no one below us making ground, it hasn't been a bad night (although Watford and Charlton were both away from home). It was business as usual at St Mary's. We probably had most of the posession, but nothing much in the way of clear cut chances. McGoldrick rounding the keeper was probably our only clear cut chance, and straight after that they had a clear header which was their only real chance. Think we once again played too pretty at times and never used the width of the pitch to our advantage. The positive was that under Perry, our defence looked much better. First to moan at the ref, so have to say D'Urso and the linesmen were very good tonight (even providing us with a cheer as the Kingsland lino went over on his ar55e). Team Scores Davis - 6 - Nothing really to do, but distribution dodgy at times. James - 7 - Much better and looked good going forward Cork - 7 - Very composed and steady. Perry - 8.5 - Solid, confident and a tower of strength Skacel - 7 - Got stuck in, used his head and pretty sound Lallana - 8 - The guy is class, very skilful and elusive. Quiet after being kicked into the Itchen towards the end!!!!! Surman - 7 - Some very neat passages of play, but just expect more form him Scheiderlin - 6 - Didn't do enough for me, fairly anonymous Wright-Phillips - 7 - Tried hard and got involved McGoldrick - 6 - Just don't rate him, sorry. Robertson - 6 - Didn't do much for me, never looked like scoring (or getting in a scoring position). Subs: Paterson - 6 - Got half an hour, but no real improvement on Robertson Gasmi - 5 - Pretty anonymous and not on long

Being honest, the Jeff Winter lookalike didn't really do much, so hard to judge one way or the other. He probably only got about 10 minutes and not sure if he touched the ball. He's not very tall, that I can tell you.

Well it's a good job that those in charge for the last two years kept the Academy as one of their priorities allowing this talent to flourish and blossom. I can remember many on here (yourself included) moaning about they had left the academy go to rack and ruin. It would appear, that with many breaking into the first team and others being lined up, that the last few years of the Academy has been a real success.

A rather passionate, but spot on post. What this Club is calling out for is a leader who can engender the support of the fans, someone who can build bridges and someone who can pull us all together. This was a great opportunity to draw a line under the past and move forward. For me, it was less about the numbers and instead how they were framed. And once again, Lowe's pig headedness, his arrogance and his lack of understanding of the bigger picture shone through in almost every line. Just what are Wilde, Cowen and Jones doing when Lowe goes off on one???? Surely one of them should have pulled him to one side and said "Are you really sure you want to say all this? Are you sure it's absolutely necessary?" Just as that Radio Solent interview proved when he first came back on the scene, he really hasn't changed and more worryingly, he hasn't learnt from his previous mistakes.

LOL. If anything, my reply was more to do with the waffle, spin and teflon approach surrounding the accounts, rather than the numbers themselves. Lowe doesn't say much anymore, but when he does, there's no doubt that he hasn't changed one iota. What did you think of some of the claims in there??? Do you think that that footballing legend Chris Iwelumo is a worthy candidate to judge our footballing and financial recovery LOL??? If it's only gone wrong in the last two years, how do you think that plays with our football club chairman???

Oi!!!!!!!!!!!! I've copyrighted that one thank you very much.

Fair enough, but hve to say the reason you had an off day was more down to the fact that we had an on day. We never let you play well, as opposed to you not playing well.

The Interims are normally out soon into the new year, so it won't be long to wait, but I will happily wager that our wage bill is not 2.5million for the six month period. It's definitely come down, but no way by 7million on an annual basis. Fancy a wager (I may need to recoup my losses when Pulis hits 20 odd appearances!!!).

But as lovely as interest payments are, if you continue to increase the principle and are unable to bring it down, there will inevitably be a crunch time.

A few questions!!!!!!!! You could drive a coach and horses through some of the stuff attributed to Lowe in there!!!!!!!!! As I have said elsewhere, any notion that the Club was in a strong position back in 2006 is rather suspect at the very least. It wasn't long before that he "didn't know where the next penny was coming from", and the cashflow showed millions flying out the door. I would rather Wilde was asked for his thoughts on Lowe's comments. LOL. I loved this one. The equivalent comparison was that our overdraft was 4.4 million, so why the need to compare apples with pears??? If anything, it shows that even under Lowe this summer our overdraft went up by 2m LOL. You might also want to ask him to justify the 3.4m he has quoted as being on deposit when he left. The question you should ask is what was our net cash position, as we also had an overdraft when he left, along with deposit accounts. The net cash figure including the treasury Deposit back then was 2.8m Without a strong mandate you would have thought Lowe would have been doing all he can to build bridges, win people round and engender a spirit of unity. Instead, once again he launches in to the Lunatic Fringe. LOL. A very good question. I saw this as further player sales, but an explanation would be useful. I had to laugh when the legendary Chris Iwelumo (no disrespect Mr Iwelumo) is wheeled out as a referee to our pioneering ways. There were other little dittys in there such as he and his cabal stepped down in the interests of unity!!!! Yeah right they did. They held on to the bitter end, as was their right, but let's not suggest they went in the spirit of unity. LOL. Also that many of these youngsters had been overlooked. Overlooked by whom??? George Burley??? Appointed by whom???? And good to see we are playing an attacking brand of Dutch football:rolleyes::rolleyes: I would also ask Michael Wilde if he is happy with the foreword to the accounts that Lowe signed off???? If so, he certainly sees things differently from when I spoke to him last!!!!!

Is Administration inevitable????? Not sure one way or the other. On one hand, last year we had an Operating Loss of just under 13million (15 million if you include interest) and an Operating Cash Outflow of 15 million. We may have made savings, but I struggle to see how we can turn around that much of a deficit (regardless of whatever cutbacks we make). Even player sales will surely take some going to bring that back into line (and at what point do we run out of family silver?). So on that basis, I can only see as accumulating even more losses, offset by whatever one off sales we can muster. The other side of the coin is that I'm still struggling to understand what Barclay's and Norwich Union's position is. They are the masters of our destiny and I'm unsure of just how they benefit if they pull the plug (or stop funding us and therefore someone else pulls the plug). Do they accept their losses to date and administration just means they don't lose any more money or do they stick with us in a hope something can turn us around (i.e. promotion)????

I would be amazed if our wage bill has dropped from 12million to 5million. Even if it had, we would also need to lose another 5million+ from elsewhere to turn a profit on normal operations (7million if you include our interest costs!!!!!!).