Frank's cousin

Cheers Viking - I dont doubt that Rupes was perhaps not the best at maybe trying to find common ground, which will not have helped, but the politics seems to be the biggest influence here.

Made me laugh - seriously funny I know it well as I am crap at Monopoly

Wes, the question you ask about how SMS was sustainable v Stoneham not being so without the additional stuff is a good one and perhaps the crux. There are a number of probable reason with everything from the cost of the land itself and clean up etc, but perhaps more importantly I think its most likely a political planning thing - its is possible that given the location of the site that a stand alone football stadium would never have been granted planning, but that a complex which has wider local appeal may well have been a requirement of the approval awarding body. So for Saints to be able to fund the scope of works demanded to gain planning consent, its possible to speculate they were looking for commercial opportunities that would maximise the revenue - such as retail and cinema, rather than others that may have provided a community service, but had lower revenue potential. In effect, perhaps SFC were being asked to fund things as part of the complex that were not the best revenue earners? Dont get me wrong, I dont like the idea of town centers becomming ghost towns because of the giant out of town complexes... but had this application been TESCO and the promise of 500 jobs, the outcome would have been different - we all know it - and no one would have cared about Eastleigh town centre. The politics and the demands of planning consent, I believe are too complex to start to throw wild accusations around IMHO. As to Southampton City Council 'saving' us, it does beg the question as Torres points out...were any councillors up for re-election around then?

I read Full Time at the Dell and thats my problem, Whilst I can see that some may see a resubmission with extras as a 'mistake' that is actually fairly nmormal part of the planning process - given the politcal nature of it all - So I dont see why some are stoic that it was somehow one big **** up by the club. I would love to see a copy and rationale of both the original submission and resubmission before making a judgement on who, what is to to blame etc. Because form a neutral perspective it does not seem any different from other major construction projects of this type especially where two councils are involved... As to the 26,000 seater - I would add that it was only from 2003 onwards when we had had a cup final that our ST number rose to 25000 and we saw weekly sell outs - prior to this we regularly only had 25000 or so for most prem games excluding the top four, so it wa snot that far out - sure its better to have the extra capacity, but there are many clubs with bigger stadia who struggle to fill them regularly...

I dont think we need to worry... I suspect that our club is now self sustaining in terms of wages and other overheads relative to our income. Which would mean that provided we containue to maintain our average gate, we would not need a rich owner... What we may see (as with teh odd recent purchase) as was indicated by NC and ML at the time of their takeover was there 'may be investment to help the promotional push within an appropriate range for our league position' The only way we should worry about this is is if this money was only 'loaned' to the club by the owner and that he may want it back at any time... but from what MLand NC said I dont think this is the plan.

Thing is we are so bloody emotional about these things - The logical thing to do would have been to do a Munich and build a single new stadium for 50,000 with Pompey off the M27.... but fans want city centre locations (always going to restrict access and therefore capacity) close to pubs etc... which is why we are next to a gas works... Would be interesting to see the business plan of the stoneham project...before making up ones mind?

What always struck me about Stoneham was why the project was considered a failure.... you only have to look at teh current issues faced by Brighton, and still faced by Everton and Portsmuff to appreciate that its a very delecate situation gaining the necessary planning approvals and many chops and chnages are often required. I understand that Lowe placed all the proverbial eggs in that basket, and without an alternative when the planners said no it looked like once again the club was not going anywhere as in the past with the West Quay plan etc. But I struggle to see why the addition of a leisure complex and the rest of it was such a 'bad idea'? It seems logical to look at additional revenue sources to help fund and sustain these major developments as Bolton did etc - I can see the argument that it was a feck up IF it was never going to get planning because of the concerns of Eastleigh, but i have also heard that alot of this had to do with political ****** between Southampton and Eastleigh Councils - Is there a definitive version of events that assess the pros and cons of the proposals without the emotional baggage or bias that can be assessed anywhere? I am interested in the truth, but as often happens on here the issue has been hijacked by those opposed on both sides to either: Say Lowe was crap ...again, or those that use SMS as an example of teh positives under Lowe, yet where is the unbiassed account of why the plans were put together in the way they were, why they were changed etc and is this all really a **** up or just the nature of the planning process and politics?

http://www.thebadge.co.uk/ says these 'celluloid covered badges were around in victorian times, but nothing on the clasp type which looks modern to me... Also 100 year old celluloid would be unstable and would have become quite oxidised by now... not quite right but am no expert

:-) glad to be of service!

Maybe part of teh problem is that too often DoFs are former managers and still very 'close' to the hands on approach so the boundaries are often smudged by the temptations to 'have a say' on selection policy and the tactical side of things. Its not the role that is a problem, but too often the combination of 'strong personalties and egos' multipled by obscured roles and responsibilities.

I can see his point, but it would be fairer to make a judgment on: L1 football quality (would have an impact on ALL clubs) Ticket prices during the current economical climate Level of success - the higher up the table, the more will go - as the entertainment factor with something to play for kicks in Hopw do we fair against other towns/cities of similar size and catchment areas given teh above? In which case i think our crowds are pretty darn good!

Uhm... all depends on job descriptions really and all parties understanding their roles and responsibilties. The reason why it tends not to work so much in the UK is that most managers are still old school in terms of management - OK they no longer book the coaches and travel, but that seems to have been replaced by insisting on being involved in contract negotiations and all that stuff... On the continent the 'manager' as we call it is the head coach who coaches and selects the team - the 'manager' looks after the contracts and commercial side of football. It works well where the head coach/UK manager type, is the one who after consultation with scouts and others select potential transfer targets and then leave the Dof/commercial managers to do the deal. The reason why this seems to cause so much pain in the UK is that managers just assume that once they select a player its a done deal, and the 'board' must not be 'backing' them if it does not happen especially if the club dont meet the asking price or wage demands of the player - we then get all that interference crap. Yet the same managers who are so opposed to Dofs seem to be the ones who appear to have no commercial understanding whatsoever - it should have been obvious to a certain manager at a certain club down the road that the huge number of deals entered into was not sustainable - yet he happily went about it getting the club into the mire and then never acknowledging his role in the mess he created because of a weak board unable to say no. Fans also seem to side with managers (as do the press and media 'pundits' - who themselves tend to be all old school in their thinking) so the boards who have acted responsibly, tried to keep the clubs finances under control are often turned upon when managers and ex-managers start spouting the 'I was not backed' hyperbole. As long as a manager understands the financial situation, and respects the fact that if he identifies a player, the DoF goes after him, but then come back and say it was not possible to reach a deal because of the budget and the players demands, then there is no problem, but it creates the ideal 'excuse' for managers if the performances are poor. The flip side is, that both the board and fans needs to appreciate the limitations to success given the budget, and therefore expectations of the manager should be appropraite to the clubs finance... DoFs work well where this is all understood by all parties, and fall on their arse where it isn't - simple really.

Wow - Senior management in 'not liked by all staff' shocker! Seriously as football fans we seem to have this in built need to have the club run exactly as we would like, with the senior management somehow 'pleasing all the people all the time' - Its fair enough to react to a history of a board that most felt had no empathy with the fans to expect one that put that first - but we should be realistic. NC is not there to be liked. He is tere to do a job, which given that we all accept we want a club that is run efficiently and within its means providing a solid foundation for growth and development, is no easy task given the pieces that needed to be picked up. That can not be done in a 'touchy feely way' but can only be achieved with a solid plan and the grit and determination to see it through regardless of the pain it may cause in some quarters. I know nothing ofrany of the rumours, but its not surprizing that NC may not be everyones cup of tea, because the kind of success he has had requires a ceratin degree of 'ruthlessness' - or should I say stoic determination. Its not my style of management, but i can respect and appreciate teh need for it given the circumstances and the desire for success. Ultimately, he should be judged on the success that he brings to implementing the strategy for development and not on how 'friendly' he is to all. Ultimately, if the club achieves its goal and we return to the the top flight, every employee will have a chance to share in that success and I dare say things will 'relax' a little, but at this time when we have to run a tight and efficient ship, there are bound to be a few casualties who find they cannot adapt to the regime. So far, publically, NC has always come across as a man you knows what he is talking about and is determined to see it through. For me the one thing that made me appreciate that we are in safe hands was a small line in one of the interviews with NC before they appoint Pards - that they had sought the advice of senior figures in the game to help - seemed to coincide with the time that WGS and various others were seen in the directors box. A man not affraid to seek guidance where necessary shows IMHO that he is a bloody good man to have in charge. Naturally I hope I am right!

Seems so... looks like Munto turned into their 'Pinnacle/LLS/HelpMe Rhonda' moment... sad for them, but goes to show how lucky we really were.

Its interesting on two counts really - I agree with SOG in that I really dont see why there is this need to define anyone by their sexuality, but can also understand why many Gay people do feel the need to come out publically - I would guess that in part its also sticking two fingers up to all homophobes a reaction to those in society that still have an issue with it and the confidence it can bring in fighting prejudice. I also feel sorry for those who feel they need to come out just to prempt the media from making a big song and dance about it - to reclaim the moral high ground.... I blame religious nonsense...you only have to look at those so called US christian fundementalist nutters - and thats alot of them. About t5ime they practiced what they preached and 'started acting ...well... Christian I guess'. (Stolen from the great Bill HIcks)

What a bunch of miserable ****s you all are. ;-)

Nah that was Jesus... on CRosses and on distribution if you think of how he did with 5 loaves and 2 fish,... I'll get my coat

seriously? ;-) Hey evolutionary biologist me .... I worship at the alter of Darwinism - which for the creationists out there is NOT a belief, but knowledge based on reason and evidence ;-) My favourite quotation: " Ever notice how creationists look so ..unevolved?'' The late great Comedien Bill Hicks

Well to be a pedant, The yuletide celebrations around the mid winter (21st December) are pagen in origin, the fact that Christ' mass is held in december is a calenar thing... and lest not forget that teh big fat bloke St Nicholas (santa claus) saints day is Dec 6th - he was a turkish (i think) bloke who apparently gave gifts to the poor children of households who could not afford to provide their girls with dowry's and so would have ended up in slavery etc...

Where the feck is this thread going.... Just for SOG '****' you I wont do what you tell me' ;-) Seriously, lets be honest. No one is infallable.... especially when it comes to opinions... Some felt NC was right about the ECHO some felt he was wrong... no one is every going to be 100% all the time whatever we think, but I think the message was spot on, relatively BS and spin free, sincere and appropriate. Time will tell on whether the legacy that ML and NC provide for the club is a great as ome of you are already alluding to, but it goes without question that to date they are headed in the right direction and things like the personal investment in the infrastructure etc shows its a long game they are interested in. All the very best for Chrsitmas and the New Year to Nicola and Markus and least I forget you lot out there including Alps and SOG. Have a good one

Not sure I wanted this to be a debate about faith/God (although as a Humanist, you will know what side I am on), but although I find it hard not to respond to WS's post, this is about football and that conversation is for another thread. However, 'values' are universal, 'Christian' or otherwise, so I dont think we need to be rude to WS.

Nice mid season message from Nicola on teh oS. Really sums up for me that we have such a great leadership team in place right now... was also overwhelmed by the 1000s of CHristmas cards Top blokes!

Jeez, there are some odd views .... are we good enough for the playoffs? YES our results show that, Are we good enough to win the league ...NOt yet, will we make the playoffs?, that depends because of the -10 points. I think there are two seperate issues here... how far we have come since the start of the season and 35 REAL points suggests we are good enough for a playoff place if we can maintain the form. Take off 10 points and it will be very tough... eg the situation we are in. In the last 12 league games we have averaged 2.33 points per game (that is league winning form) but our first ten games + the -10 points havemade it difficult, thats all. To lose 1-0 to the leaders who have spent 3-4 years putting a side together, when AP has had 4 months is nothing short of miraculous if you ask me. We should be very proud of how the lads and Alan have pulled this around. If we maintain this average we would finish on 80 points which would eb enough for a playoff place - but its going to be hard as for that we need to win 8, draw 2 and only lose 2 out of every 12 games... but i think that is possible dont you?

French are not a race, neither are the 'Oirish' they are merely nationals of another country if being a miserable pedant that I am

:-)