um pahars

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!!!!!!).

But the football board comprises of Lowe, Cowen, Wilde and Jones. Cowen and Wilde aren't line manages in any sense of the term, they are Non Execitives (who may do a bit of work at SMS or from home), but they are not involved in the chain of command. Ultimately Lowe has his hand on the tiller and Jan reports to him. He should certainly let Jan manage and not interfere in any day to day footballing issues, but he really should be there to be able to judge his direct reports progress.

hints!!!!!! It does more than hints!!!!!! It blames everyone else, conveniently forgetting the reason why Plan B would have had to be implemented, which would be as a direct result of relegation which has turned this Club's finances upside down. To suggest that all the current turmoil is down to Hone and co's actions last summer shows Lowe to have a tenuous grip on reality.

Not sure I agree Ron. Lowe's main role is as CEO and in that respect he ultimately oversees all footballing matters (BTW I mean he should oversee them, not partake in all of them!!!!!). Ultimately Jan and his team report to him, so surely he needs to keep abreast of how things are panning out. It was something I was critical of regards Hone, in that I thought he should have attended all away games to oversee Burley, so think I am being consistent here. I see his presence at matches more from an operational point of view, than as opposed to being there in an ambassadorial role.

When the play offs first came on the scene didn't they use to involve 3rd to 5th from one divsion and a team one place above relegation from the division above (or am I just imagining it????????????)??? COs we might get involved that way!!!

Rasiak was one of Lowe's last acts who was signed on mega wonga and a 4 year deal, but we also had players on big wages hanging over from our Premiership days (e.g. Claus still had two years to run). Skacel was one of Wilde's/Crouch's buys, whilst Saganowski was under Hone.

And I said so the moment it was obvious that Hone and co weren't implementing Plan B last summer. They should have started the cutbacks back then.

Haven't had long to look at the words that accompany the accounts, but like you I was drawn to the fact that "the Board remain in negotiations with Barclays Bank, who are seeking a progressive reduction in their position, and the loan note holder". I'll have to look what was said in the interims (and last years accounts), but this certainly doesn't suggest that we have come to an agreement with either, but instead we are still in negotiations!!!! As for the Going Concern note, it's been there a while (and the accounts have never been qualified), but I think there are a few more more strings attached this time around as you would expect as our financial position deteriorates (e.g the loan note holder is mentioned in here for the first time for these accounts).

The cost of the transfer is amortised over the length of the players contract and shown as "Amortisation of players’ registrations" in the P & L. HTH

12.5 million loss on normal operations (i.e. all normal income less all normal costs & not tainted by player sales/amortisation). This sort of increases to 14.4 million once you factor in the ongoing interest costs.

LOL. I'll sure try. Below is a piece (I think from the Echo or matbe The Guardian outlining the fact that there was no warchest when Wilde/Crouch/Hone took over from Lowe in summer 2006). Here was Hone said about the warchest, and how the signings of the summer after Lowe were funded (the bits between Hone's quotes are the reporters bit). "What was clear pretty quickly after coming into the company was that there was no reserves, what some might call a warchest," said Hone. "Money that had been brought in by player trading was just used to keep the company afloat." Saints' yearly accounts released last week showed a loss of £3.3m in the 13 months ending June 30, 2006 - ironically, the day former chairman Rupert Lowe quit. During that period, Saints sold Peter Crouch, Theo Walcott, Antti Niemi, Nigel Quashie and Kevin Phillips for around £14m. "If not for selling players, the losses would be absolutely horrendous," Hone added. So without any warchest', how have Saints paid for their manager's close season rebuilding. "It's in staged payments for the players, but it's been done on debt by and large," Hone revealed

Before you thump the keyboard, go and have a good think about how things transpired in the second half of that season, how easy it was to release players midway through a season and who we still had on the payroll. With regards the first one, although you are quick to name Pearce and Pericard, you are somewhat slower to remember Wright, Lucketti and others who were brought in to effectively save our season. Whilst they obviously impacted on our wage bill, the cost of not bringing them in was probably a million times worse. Secondly, moving players halfway through a season is a tough ask. Lowe and Wilde have found it hard to sell players in the longer summer window so by comparison that month window is tough to trade in. Additionally, when you trade in the summer you have the flexibility of remoulding a team in pre season, whereas games are fast and furious in January. And lastly, it is also worth remembering that many players contracts expire in the summer (e.g. Lundekvam and many others) and so the more obvios time to cut back is in those summer months. When Lowe released the trading statement a while back it was clear that wages had remained at similar levels for the Hone period through the Crouch period, with the reasons above being the rationale. Not everything Crouch did was good, and like you I think he dithered post Burley, but his hands were somewhat tied by the previous actions of the Executives and others before that (himself included of course).

Because the Club that started out that 2006/7 season was one that Lowe left and was still haemoraghing cash. Those that took over stemmed the flow somewhat in their first year, bu then failed in their second year. Here is something I posted a while back when some idiot was claiming there was a kitty left behind. It sort of stopped that claim in its tracks!!!!!!! Here was Hone said about the warchest, and how the signings of the summer after Lowe were funded. "What was clear pretty quickly after coming into the company was that there was no reserves, what some might call a warchest," said Hone. "Money that had been brought in by player trading was just used to keep the company afloat." Saints' yearly accounts released last week showed a loss of £3.3m in the 13 months ending June 30, 2006 - ironically, the day former chairman Rupert Lowe quit. During that period, Saints sold Peter Crouch, Theo Walcott, Antti Niemi, Nigel Quashie and Kevin Phillips for around £14m. "If not for selling players, the losses would be absolutely horrendous," Hone added. So without any warchest', how have Saints paid for their manager's close season rebuilding. "It's in staged payments for the players, but it's been done on debt by and large," Hone revealed

The balance of power has effectively been: Dec 96 to Jun 06 - Lowe and his cabal calling the shots. Jul06 to Feb 07 - A balance of Wilde, Crouch, Hone & others where no one held a balance of power Feb 07 to Dec 07 - Hone/Dulieu in control of the PLC board. Jan 08 to May 08 - Crouch in control (through Hoos). If you think that Lowe left this Club in a healthy state with a bank balance that would tide us over, then you have been completely take in by the PR spin. In the first season down, we lost 9 million pounds out the door on normal trading (that's even after a 7 million parachute subsidy which is therefoe a 16m disparity between ongoing income and ongoing costs). He left a company haemoraghing cash, "didn't know where the next penny was coming from" and an operation that needed player sales to balance the books. As others have mentioned on this thread, I have little sympathy for the route taken by Hone and co in their last 6 months, when instead of implementing Plan B they instead spent a few million more. And there have been other mistakes in the last two years which have contributed to the mess we now find ourselves in. But for Lowe to once again claim this is someone elses mess is somewhat passing the blame. Our troubles all stem from relegation frm the top flight when millions were wiped from the top line, leaving a Club with an infrastructure and cost base that was always going to struggle in this division (Wilde himself admits to thinking that we can't wash our face in this division). Before Lowe holds everyone else to account, methinks their should be some perspective about where our problems come from. They must take their share of the blame for the actions in recent years (particularly the Executives at the start of last season when they failed to implement Plan B). And with that relegation came the reasons for why we find ourselves where we are now. Income dropped from around 50 million to about 1/3 of that. It is that massive drop that has resulted in the total restructuring of this Club. Other decisions haven't helped (and they have indeed hindered), but when put in perspective, it was relegation that caused the problems we now face. To end, Lowe did not leave a robust Club with a large cash reserve by any stretch of the imagination.

Well basically he hasn't. As I pointed out his points per game ratio is lower (something like 20% lower than Pearsons). If he had been here from the start of last season or even for the same length of time as Pearson and managed that rate, then we would have been relegated. It's not beyond the realms of possibilities that Jan can emulate Pearsons rate, and even then I wasn't one of those dancing on the pitch as I didn't think avoiding relegation was much to celebrate (relieved, yes, celebrating, no). As to who had the hardest job, then it's all about personal opinion. One inherited a demotivated squad on the slide, albeit a squad with some under performing talent, the other had to restructure and had fewer "star" players to use, but had all the pre season period to rebuild and develop a style of play. We'll never agree on who had the hardest task!!!!

He was definitely no super hero, but considering what he inherited, when he came in with regards pressure & a downward spiral and what he was up against, he certainly did a good job. On top of that his points per game ratio is better than what Jan has achieved to date.

Have a look at this oracle of truth and you'll see that Jan was managing back in 1990, whilst Pearson didn't start until 8 yars later (that's if the OS is correct of course;)). http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/team/?page_id=6587&player_id=156 Pearson was still playing at Sheff Weds in 1990 (and did so for another 4 years) and then moved on to Boro (for another 4 years) where most of us probably remember him from.

I think it was down to the fact that DMG played "in the hole" as opposed to Lallana. When Lallana plays there he is much more mobile and plays all over the pitch, leaving McGoldrick isolated on too many occasions. Along with that, I don't think DMG is the man to lead the line on his own. Yesterday, Robertson led the line well and for most of the game looked a better option up there than DMG (still not convinced in the long run that Robertson is the answer). And at the same time, DMG didn't roam across the park, but instead played just off of Robertson, meaning Robertson wasn't isolated. A 4-4-1-1, but this time the 1-1 played much closer together almost being a 4-4-2 for most of the game.

I think the lad has talent in abundance, and if being totally honest, his style of play would be better suited to a higher division (although then again, it might not be a bad idea for him to continue plying his trade with us). Given that the "bigger" clubs have money to burn and can afford a gamble (and conversely we're desperate for cash!!!), I think it will be a struggle to hold on to him. Of course, he may not been overly keen on going (and could always dig his heels in) but I fear those in charge will be desperate to cash in on him some time in 2009.

Very impressive performance, made better by free booze and being in with the Reading fans. I had a sneaky feeling that we could pinch a draw, as I thought Reading's style of play would suit us, but those around me were convinced they would stuff us. The Reading fans kept saying they didn't play well, but I think that would conveniently ignore that we put in a fantastic performance and didn't let them play. Looking at the team, it was though Jan had finally got the message. Hope he learns from it. Three out of the back five were very experienced and then you had Cork who has played a season in this division. You can then carry a youngster and James did well in this line up. Being honest, I still don't rate BWP but he got two fine goals, so as it stands, he's on my Xmas card list. Even though he is not my favourite, he should certainly start ahead of Gobern, and with Surman, we had 50% of the midfield with some experience. Scheiderlin looked composed and Lallana was perhaps better suited to wide(ish) right as opposed to playing in the hole. I'm still not convinced of the personnel up front, but the shape looked better with DMG not leading the line. Instead, Robertson led the line well, and it enabled DMG to play off of him. I wouldn't say DMG played in the hole in the same way that Lallana did (i.e. with total freedom and roaming around), but instead played it in a Zola/Bergkamp way. It certainly looked more like two up front, than what we have seen recently when DMG has been isolated. Overall, we definitely deserved the win and at times played with real style and confidence. If he is going to tinker, then I would bring in Pearce, push Cork out to right back. Longer term, I would like to see a tough midfielder next to Schneiderlin, allowing Surman to play on the left, and then someone up front who can score on a regular basis (and would accept DMG playing off of him).

Have to agree with regards getting the amount for Jones, a player who was effectively holding us to ransom. Just as I praised Lowe for at least getting good money for players such as Richards, I always thought getting that amount for Jones (given the circumstances) was a decent job. With regards picking up John in return, there can be no doubt that without his goals last year we would probably have been relegated and in administration by now. Of course, another striker may have scored a similar amount, but then again, as we are now finding out, it's not that easy!!!!!!!! But, it must also be remembered that at that point we did have three well paid strikers on the books, and although you certainly need back up in key positions, to have that many was taking the **** somewhat (given our financial position!!!!!).

Are you for real????? Do you think Hone & Co had never heard of exchange rates???? You sound like my nephew who was **** a hoop when he found a 1,000 Lira note. SAGA "You must match my wages" HONE "What are you on?" SAGA "10,000 pounds (cypriot)" HONE "No worries, we'll give you 10,000 pounds (sterling)" Saga walks away having increased his wages by 50%.:rolleyes:

I await the fine print, but I am always happy to acknowledge the support of the major creditors as being good news. Of course there will strings attached, of course it can be withdrawn at any time and of course it would be better if we didn't have to go to them with a begging bowl, but hopefully it means we live to breathe another day. Although of course, I await GM berating this news as being anything but positive (as he did last time around:rolleyes::rolleyes:).