Saint Without a Halo

Can't disagree with any of that until this board matches words with actions the events unravelling at the moment and summarised so succinctly above will continue to cause concern to a lot of supporters. My concern is that the board doesn't really mean the words it is uttering and that they would be better off telling us the truth rather than continuing to claim we do not need to sell players and this this whole current mess is somehow a transition phase towards improving the team and kicking on!

So true yet we are being told we don't have to sell! I would prefer real honesty from the board about our plans and ambitions rather than to be treated like a child. I am old enough and wise enough to accept that as a small provincial City our finances mean we can never be more than a Stoke Crystal Palace, Leicester or a Norwich with the limited but realistic ambitions of a lower mid table finish and survival rather than trying to mix it with the money bags.

The only conclusion to draw on the facts and evidence to date!

The end of the month does not leave much time for integration and forming a team. A team that struggles in the first few months rarely gets out of the mire Crystal Palace being a rare exception. The board must have known Mopo and many players would leave well before the end of last season and yet seem to have been extremely slow to react whilst still talking about improving the squad and kicking on! So far the evidence of shoring up the boat never mind going on to kick on is still absent hence the many concerns!

Most teams have good players who could grace the CL and not many are leaving and if they are no more than one or two per team at best! Yet ours are said to be wanting to leave in droves! This clearly shows there is far more to this situation than just naked player ambitions!

By the time we get to anfield we will not realise our team has changed to stripes!

This getting fing ridiculous I have supported Saints for 50 years and we have had some good teams and players. We have always sold one or two! but I have never seen anything like this, where all our key players are for sale 4 weeks before the season begins. If this continues they will have to reduce the size of the kit to fit our under 12's as they will be the only ones left! Surely we cannot contemplate spending 130m in 4 weeks that is over 30m a week! At this rate the cardboard cut outs will be the only players left at the new training ground!

Because they allowed Liverpool to sign our players and agree a price before they agreed a price to sell Suarez whilst we have sold our players and can now be held to ransom by others who all know we need to buy!

This is my gripe better they stop playing the we are still progressing mularky and be honest about the ambition downgrade for the club that led undirectly toso many departures.

The last two Dutchmen depended almost entirely on the academy and that turned out far from well. Last year we played up to 5 academy graduates I will hazard a guess this year will be significantly less as we go mainly foreign like all good provincial mid to lower table clubs.

It is only four whilst out average success rate is maintained in the top few. The last two years lack of success have put a dent in the 4 places going forward

Agreed just look at our results whenever he was out suspended/injured compared to when he played I recollect him always being a big miss

I agree with this as the most possible scenario 100% which is why I would like the board to be honest rather than trying to explain away what has been happening since NC departure as just part of a plan for further progress I believe NC believed with more spend he could make the club even more valuable KL when she assumed control in 2013 disagreed the manager and the players then decided to jump ship as in their opinions the club no longer met their ambitions and or financial reward expectations. We are going back to being a well run provincial at best mid table club and the board should not try to cover this up by pretending they can hold on to disillusioned manager and players or that this is all part of some great plan to kick on above 8th. Also the players and manager are totally entitled to move on once they realised the ambition of the club and their opportunities of achieving success here were greatly reduced. It is of course always possible that we can exceed 8th and I for one will hope we do as all supporters will however probability wise it was far more likely we would progress by adding to our team than by replacing it given the risks of the quality of what we buy added to the commitment and team spirit that needs replacing as well as the proximity of the new season and the level of change that will take place.

70m to spend in 45 days is at least 1.8m a day! 2m a day if we spend the 90. We had better get a move on then!

That could be confusing as to which of the two teams would be saints!

This in a nutshell is the current problem the board needs to be honest with the fans!

As I have stated above what happened was inevitable it was a matter of timing only between NC and KL as both would need to cash in at some point on the increased value of the club /players to recover the investments made they just disagreed on when to stop investing and when to cash in. It was inevitable from the point we stopped investing that the manager and players would go as it was that ambition that was keeping them. My complaint is at the board who keep telling us they are not down grading our ambitions and that they will stop 1 to 5 happening only to look stupid when they cant. Better to be honest and state clearly what we are doing than to fail at every stage of keeping anyone and pass it all off as some sort of planned progress.

He may well have thought it was his club that is not the issue I suggest you re read post 108 and 109 where you clearly said "yes" to the question "do you know for a fact he spent unsanctioned funds?". If she allowed him extensive powers to legally spend her money she cannot complain when he does it. I suspect he had extensive powers under the probate as an executor of the will as left to him by ML which she then wanted to curb after inheriting and that caused the difference.

Sorry you said you know for a fact he spent unsanctioned funds (see post 109) your opinion with no evidence. I said if he did he can be sued and wasn't. So I doubted a banker would be so silly to do this. My view is he wanted additional funds which were not forthcoming which I believe to be far more likely. If she indeed gave him unlimited powers then she is not in a position to complain if he uses them. Anyway my opinion versus yours End of

Correct but in this case your shareholders owners have given you unlimited sanctions and therefore you cannot spend unsanctioned funds. KL can always add the sanctions at any point which is probably what happened. However I said I doubted NC had spent any money that was not within his powers to do so otherwise he would have been sued and as a banker he would not have been that stupid.

I am not whining about the sales they were inevitable as soon as the investments dried up! I am just not happy at the board dressing up a necessary downgrading of ambition as progress I will be more than pleased if we finish better than 8th next season and it is possible just highly unlikely!

No I don't know it all but in this particular case I almost certainly do as I am authorised to sign large cheques on behalf of my company!

That is exactly my point! NC thought we could go further in increasing the value of the club KL didn't when the manager and players saw the investment dry up they jumped ship as they are entitled to My objection is to the current board trying to pass off what is happening as some sort of plan for progress and making statements they cant possibly comply with when indeed it is nothing more than the need to go back to being a small provincial self financing club all be it with a current good academy .

Sorry this is crap! if you have an authority to sign cheques that authority is approved and limited by the company owners or shareholders i.e sanctioned ! if you go outside your authorised limits (and are unsanctioned) you will be sued! Ask any lawyer, accountant or indeed banker

Where did I disagree with anything you say? I have supported Saints since 1968 and am well aware of who and what we are and as I said before NC and KL only disagreed on when to cash in it was timing only. However for the new board to continue to claim what is happening is progress assumes we are naïve!