um pahars

Personally, I wouldn't call mere survival a "success". We just about survived last season, but I didn't run onto the pitch as I didn't see that as worthy of being celebrated after such a shocking season (mainly brought about by a totally disinterested Burley IMHO). Instead, it was more of a "relief" that we weren't going to go under. Success for me would be climbing the table and then ultimately getting promoted.

How about thinking back 4+ years ago when we were happily ensconsed in the top flight, and then imagine yourself being given the following choices: a) Would you rather we continued to ply our trade in the Premiership, or b) Would you prefer it that we were relegated? I just don't believe there would have been many b's then!!!

A little bit harsh when you think about Gray and Wigley for instance. The trouble there was not the sacking of them, but their appointments in the first instance!!!!! As for how long as he got, well, as someone else has pointed out I think he will be around as long as Lowe is here. JP is so much Lowe's man, that a sacking would be an admission of failure and something that I don't think Lowe would be able to survive. Unless Wilde (or the bank) lose faith, then I think JP will be here for quite a while (even if we get relegated), unless of course some rich group of arabs rock up!!!!!!!!!!

Could you argue that some of the hostility and opposing sentiment towards the set up is a historical and cultural thing in the English Leagues. we have never had this set up, instead the "Gaffer" is the sole man in charge and is aided by an Assistant Manager and maybe a Coach? Therefore "English" managers see it as a slur on their credibility and stature if they have to report to someone other than the Board/Chairman and don't take to not being the main man in charge of the footballing side. It would appear to be the norm on the continent, but has it always been that way???? And is it more successful, or just more suited to their cultural and historical roots????

Good point. I still haven't really fathomed out Wotte's role. Is it Head of the Academy (as he was introduced in the corporate ares before the West Ham game), is it in charge of the ressies, is he the DOF???????

And this is where the manager starts to earn his corn. We still have a number of players on our books who were told they were surplus to requirements and who were being actively touted around for sale. One would imagine that as a result they're not the most motivated of players and could well have a damaging effect on team morale. So the options are: a) try and bring them back into the fold, hoping their lack of motivation doesn't rub off on others. b) marginalise them and accept they are a drain on resources, but their sidelining is for the greater good of the team. c) try and loan them out over the next couple of months. d) come to a compromise agreement and settle some of their outstanding contract and let them leave as out of contract players. e) any other options.

I'm certainly not saying we just sit back and accept life down here, I'm just saying that as one of probably 15 other teams in the same boat, we are all just doing the same thing and fighting for probably one promotion place (assuming the other two are taken by one of the 6 parachute laden yo-yo clubs). For me creating a conveyor belt of talent is not a guarantee of promotion, and I would argue you actually need a cohesive battling side all pulling together under a strong manager (and including a few bruisers in there).

But any good ones from the next lot will just get poached as well! We are now well and truly in the lower pecking order and at the mercy of those Clubs that have the wonga. Additionally, it is a big ask to keep producing youngsters in such a quantity each and every season. I'm not sure any Club has prodcued such a vast number each year. Many clubs are aware of the benefits of producing youth (for your own team and also as a revenue generator), and sadly we are just one of a number of middle CCC clubs looking for that odd promotion place.

I may have to do a M on you and hold that in some notebook thingy to throw back at you at some point. Despite the savings, our finances are not on a sound basis!

I understand that Hockaday is the favoured one at the moment (with Henderson playing a role). My fear is that just with Wigley, Lowe is by far the dominant player at the Club. Poortvliet is a relatively unknown who is in deference to Lowe, as are Hockaday and Henderson. Has he got the DOF position that he covetted a few months back???????

"it is used as the shortening of "Sic Transit Gloriam" meaning (roughly) there but for the grace of God go I, therefore distancing oneself from the mistake and often passing silent comment on the writer of the original quote." and/or "It's Latin for "thus". Editors use it when citing a reference to inform a reader that the spelling or grammatical mistakes in the reference are to be attributed to the original source. Just another way of saying, "Don't blame me."" and/or "It is Latin for 'such'. It is used in prose when quoting a factual error, solecism or typo to indicate that the mistake was made in the text being quoted and not by the writer him/herself." and/or "When in doubt consult the Oxford Dictionary (for, to my mind, in so far as anything can ever be considered 'correct' in the evolving land of language it is there that correct is established): sic - A parenthetical insertion used in printing quotations or reported utterances to call attention to something anomalous or erroneous in the original, or to guard against the supposition of misquotation. Also as n., an instance of ‘sic’. Etymology: L. sic so, thus." Basically saying, I'm only repeating this ****** here and am totally aware it is ******..

You obviously missed the various (sic) suffixes :rolleyes: WWWWhhhhhooooooossssssshhhhhhhhh :smt117

Just to throw in something to think about, I have to say that I can't remember too many of us moaning about the "state of the Premiership" when we were eating at the top table, playing to full houses and signing players from lower league teams (we even stole a number of youngsters from other teams academies!!!). I have to agree that things have got even worse since we departed from the top flight, but it does seem as though a few years in the lower echelons has certainly made alot more of us aware of just how out of kilter the game currently is.

Maybe now that BWP has been cleared, he could do the victims a favour and give the police the names of those who committed the actual offence along with Dyer (of course Dyer could always provide the police with their names as well). Being such a model citizen, I think that would be something he could easily do.

Try this link!!!!!!! http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/news/?page_id=10194 and this one. http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/news/?page_id=10197 Here's a few snippets from the OS: Derby wanted to keep him (sic): "Saints have snapped up rising starlet Lee Holmes on a Bosman free transfer. The talented left-sided midfielder is out of contract at Derby who are reportedly desperate to keep him." Derby wanted to keep him (sic) and he likes our new set up: "His contract has now expired and although Paul Jewell's side were keen to keep him, he feels he needs a fresh start and that with their policy of promoting youth, Southampton can provide that." He likes the revolutionary new set up: "Holmes has opted for Saints largely because of their revolutionary new coaching structure" It goes on: "he knows he will have every opportunity to shine at Southampton under the new continental coaching system designed to promote youth" and on: "Holmes believes the passing style of the new managers" I think it sort of proves that Holmes was brought in after the Total Football revolution had commenced. HTH.

I'm sure the OS was saying that Holmes turned Derby down (sic) because of the Dutch football and the Chairman's youngsters policy.

Crouch offered to buy out Lowe's shares (at I think 60p+), but he was never in a position to buy the rest as this would have taken him over the 30% figure and he never had the money to bid the circa £20m or the entire share capital. Crouch never claimed to have that level of funding (nor did Wilde). Exactly. If your shares are going to be worthless in administration and you're not being offered anything other than a nominal figure then your instinct might be to tough it out and hope you can turn it around. Of course selling for a nominal figure to someone else might be in the best interests of the Club, but I think Lowe's cabal and Wilde are putting their own interests first here. What were you thinking of???? Can't see how anyone from outside would invest as a minority and I can't see those two groups putting any money in.

But there is no real "market" for our shares. There are no major institutional shareholders and instead the majority of our shares are in the hands of a few players i.e. Lowe's cabal, Wilde, Crouch & Corbett's. On top of that there are a vast number of shareholders who are fans and hold them as a sentimental investment as opposed to an investment that they might trade. They are simply worth what anyone is prepared to pay (and the AIM listing is almost irrelevant), and recent history has shown that Championship Clubs do not fetch anything other than a nominal value (Wolves, Coventry, Ipswich, Leicester etc). Lowe's cabal and Wilde have nothing to gain by letting their shares go for a nominal fee (even if it is in the Club's best interests), and so instead will sit on them and hope that things turn wround on the pitch before more drastic options are considered.

I definitely agree that we are overpriced, but have to say I also think that even at 10p (valuing us at £3m) we are still overpriced. We are losing money big time and it would be a big ask for someone to come in and pay for the privilege of funding our losses. The vast majority of takeovers in the Championship in recent years have been for nominal sums for this very reason. I am amazed that people are considering paying anything for the shareholdings of the Lowe cabal and Wilde.

I have to say that I think you are being extremely optimistic thinking we are (or near to) being on an even keel. Last season we lost north of £15m (Operating loss of £13m and a further £2m interest charge), so we have a very black hole that needs addressing. The cash outflow might be slightly differet, but it was/is still a very sizeable figure. I don't think the savings made to date have been of that magnitude to make us break even, and as mentioned elsewhere if the drop in gates of 4,000 continues then that will be close to being £1.5m to £2m worse off than last season. We are still very much in the mire from a financial perspective.

Judging after three league games is totally unrealistic, and even allowing for todays game which equates to relegation form, it is still being totally unrealistic. We will need 10 games, maybe 20 and arguably the entire season to give a fair reflection of how we are doing. Numpties coming on after one good performance are as naive as those crucifying a young team after two games. What's worse is those that feel the need to come on here and pontificate after a good performance. Rather than take heart from a good win, for some reason they feel they need to come on here and wave their dikc around and rub their fellow fans nose in it, just because they were slightly more cautious/worried with how the season would go. Similarly those that come on here crucifying other fans when we have just lost would be better off keeping schtum, as ultimate it means our Club is in the mire. As supporters we all have different views on what the future holds and it doesn't mean jack sh17t if we are realistic, optimistic, pessimistic et al.

And of course when the statement comes out that the Club has been mismanaged (by his new sidekick) since the same summer, the part about giving Rasiak a 4 year deal on mega wonga is brushed over (along with the warchest quote!!!). The double standards at play are shocking.

Agreed, but it is also no secret that Lowe is declaring that the new set up was all his idea (I wonder what Wilde does then?). He will therefore have to be judged on how it performs (and will not be able to hide behind the excuses that there were no alternatives, his hands were tied etc). Despite being up against it from a financial perspective we still have/had a number of alternative routes that we could have chosen to follow i.e. keeping Pearson over Poortvliet, so we shouldn't just accept that being in the financial pickle has meant we have no alternatives.

Exactly!!!!!!!! He spent 2million on Rasiak and then committed the Club to a four year deal. And that was about the same time as he was telling everyone that their was a war chest that Burley could spend.

That was some commitment back then by Lowe. I remember him saying he had blown the wage cap to land him, but didn't realise it was such a lomg term commitment.