Frank's cousin

Sorry disagree - Wilde, Crouch and all the other major shareholders will have had a very good understanding of the finance - Do you think that if it was simply down to incompetence Crouch would have been so quiet about his 2 mil being lost? Or the other shareholders who would have had a far greater uunderstanding of our predicament than you or I? Wilde went back to Lowe because in his opinion not enough was being done to reduce costs etc (and because he was probably ****ed at being on the outside) - There is an unwelcome truth in this that everyone is too feckin scared of admitting - IS that had we had just 3000 more per home game we would have gotten to the summer - with sales and ST income. The simple reason seems to be that gates fell below the break even figure on too many occaisions and as such costs exceeded revenue and the bank forclosed... its not rocket science. Thats not blaming fans, as who could blame them, but I think most of us would have thought we could have maintained 18000 or so at least despite teh crap on offer or the protesters

'Exploiting the rules' = PLC v Club... work it out second part should have said ''as a result of the club going into administration' because Lowe had indeed left the club when teh penalty was applied, even though he was in charge when teh club went into admin' verbal jousting for sure but based on the original artical teh Mail did indeed get it wrong on both counts....

S'pose Bellend might still be appropriate?

WRONG! The mail is apologising for suggesting Lowe set up teh PLC to avoid the points deduction, which is the first inaccuracy. They also go on to say sorry for suggesting Lowe was at the club when the penalty was awarded... which is NOT actually factually correct - it was some 3-4 weeks after going into admin that the points deduction was confirmed - when Lowe had indeed left.....

So much for the loyalty of Redflaps.... the skates appear to have been stitched up like a kipper if you pardon the fishy pun ... and some still argue Lowe should have given him free reigh of the cheque book... the mind bogles...

Only if you are speculating that the club knew there was no way it could meet its comitments within the AGREED overdraft limit. That agreement with Barclays would probably have been based on a minimum level of income, the lions share of which was from gate reciepts. In a nutshell what probably happened is that the Masterplan was club to do all it possibly could to reduce its costs (loaning out players/selling players etc) so that it reduced the outgoings to a minimum that was sustainable within the Agreed overdraft... then when there were no takers for certain players in January (because they were either crap or too expensive - and who committed us to these players?) the avergae gate was no longer high enough to sustain the exisiting contracts - cant see how this is something we can only blame on 1 person really. Dont forget as well, The bank woudl also have known the implications - considereing the were less than 3-4 weeks away from ST sale revenue and the opening of the transfer window as well as the ability not to renew certain contracts... BUt if you really want to believe (not that I know why the obsession) that Lowe was somehow quite happy and ignorant of the situation as it suits the underlying 'dislke' ofthe man, feel free, its history and of no relevance... would just be nice though for once to actually look at FACTS for a change when discussing these HISTORIC issues?

Thing is, you may well believ that, or it may just be your opinion, but we really DONT know the truth about the timings and the reason why Barclays pulled the plug when they did... i could just as easy come out with a similar strength of argument how it had nothing to do with him which would be about as credible as your post because we dont know the truth... But when has that ever bothered the majority? We chose tho believe what we want to believe.... I would hazzard a guess though that Lowe's business accumen or lack of it (take your pick) probably had feck all to do with the timing.

Thing is if someone prints something thatt is inaccurate, it should IMHO be at least retracted apology or not... we see too much of this sort of crap that becomes urban myth. Just because we dont like the bloke, should not mean the principle does not count?

Well if he becomes a true saints legend and deserves a statue, I hope they never melted the wavey arm.... ;-)

WTF? we sign a player that is arguably one of the best in this division and only amongst Saints fans can we see arguments! ;-)

Feck for a moment there I thought we had signed Chris Martin ;-)

Thats some paranoia based conspiracy theory - jeez looks like LOwe has been elevated to some sort of cunning evil mastermind... cue hammer horror wicked laugh with loads of reverb... MY GUESS IS (and FFS that all ANYOF US CAN DO) is that its quite simple. another week and we would ahve been into ST renewal territory which would have seen revenue come into the club which would have meant stability well into the new season. The summer would have opened the transfer window as well as the end of several expensive contracts, thus bringing expenditure back in line with revenue. Lowe did not anticipate Barclays pulling the plug when they did - Barclays will have known that this would trigger administration -s so I am still confused why they did so given that we were 3 weeks away from a good cash injection. It may have been the falling revenues from falling gates based on the on the field performances, but even with say only 5000 ST sales it would have been enough to get the club to the point where we finally stopped losing money. Some argue that had Lowe kept Pearson.... its a fair point but impossible to predict with any certainty.... but the admin Timing was not down to teh boards choice - and if those who promised investment and spent accordingly in the previous season and tied us thsoe contracts share in the blame.... but hey, if there is a better conspiracy theory out there that slings mud, so much the better hey?

Neimi still a leg - just helping out his old mate and looking after his own family - all this guff about it being pompey is pretty childish TBH...

A FL solution instead of points deductions? 1. How about this for every £ a club spends o a transfer fee and wages it must lodge 50p into a secure trust. this money is ONLY available to the club. So if a rich benefactor gifts a club serious millions he also has to gift 50% into the trust which he can NOT get back - this mony can only be drawn if a club is releagted to support EXISTING contracts, thus allowing the club to avoid debt accumulation following relegation 2. NO club can borrow for transfers or wages 3. Borrowing on infrastructure allowed but maximum should be based on affordabilty based on projected revenues two divisions lower than the one the club is in?

I think there are two seperate issues here. The first is the FL rules.The princple of points deductions IS sound as its designed to ensure fair competiton - eg to discourage clubs form gambling on success by over extending themselves. In a way its designed to stop clubs going under as a result of over enthusiastic and naive owners who are happy to gamble the clubs fortunes without thinking of the consequences - and ultimately its the fans that suffer... so these rules are fair. The problem that we faced was craeted by the huge disparity in revenue between the premiership and the rest. The Sky millions. What we need to remember is that we did NOT, gamble our future by stupid borrowings and spening daft amounts on players and wages, we ran a tight ship and lived within our means and did all the responsible things that the FA and governing bodies would encourage; investing a strong youth academy and in a new stadium - something that became a necessity if we wanted to have a reasonable revenue given that we had no choice but to go all seater AND as a result of the rule changes that meant gates were no longer shared... In a nutshell we kept our books balanced and only invested what we could afford - an example to all of a well run club.... BUT this huge disparity between the prem and FL means that without drastic measures at the expense of football, relegated clubs without the support of benefactors millions are always going to struggle... If that had been the only reason for our administration, I would have said it was unfair - because we were penalised by rules set up to stop FL clubs gambling on success, not double penalise relagted prem clubs who already lose a competitive edge by needing to sell off high earners and most of the prem squad to start with. However, Wilde with his promised millions and Crouch going aong with it, DID spend beyond our means on a do or die attempt at promotion. Had we not spent that money and avoided the expensive signings that were unsustainable, we could say we were hard done by, but as we did take a gamble, the reality is we did exactly that which the FL rules are trying to stop clubs doing. Lets not forget, it was not teh stadium loan that dragged us over the edge - that was managable if we budgeted accordingly, it was the wage bill and thus the losses that were increasing the overdraft... and then teh bank pulled the plug. The irony as many have pointed out is that had say Lowe decided to take a big gamble, borrowed 30 mil and let Strachan spend as he saw fit, we might still be in the prem, albeit with say 60 mil in debt.... fans would be happy - but is that responsible management or living the dream? The problem is a system that allows clubs to spend huge amounts of borrowed cash in the prem without any controls, in an effort in most cases just to stand still. The system is fecked, and the sad truth is that those who could do something about either have no balls or too much self interest to level the playing field

There is a certain irony in the fact that the less glamourous premier league clubs (ourselves included at the time) were more than happy with the PL set up which at least doubled if not trebled their revenues, without really recognising the long term consequences.. Sky are only interested in subscribers and advertisers not football fans... I hate it when those dim wits presenters and ex players who buy into this crap on crap radio such as talk sport continue to peddle the popular myths that Sky has been good for the game.... it has been good business and turned simply wealthy by normal standard footballers into multi millionnaires. The majority of clubs seem to have thick owners and boards who never realised that they may have trebled their revenue, but it only meant it ended up in the pockets of players and agents, mostly in disproportionate wages. Some clubs did invest some of these riches into infrastructure, academies and new facilities, but as we have seen, by doing this they diverted funds away from first team players and their deep pockets - how dare they? did the boards not know that all money in, must be spent on the players? ;-) In addition, clubs should have been able to see that by handing the financial power to SKY they were in effect handing over the power to the 'brand' clubs (I wont say bigger, because how many fans you have on a global basis sat on their collective arses v actually turn up and to to games is irrelevent - thats just clever marketing). They hold the true power. Sky is only concerned with viewing figures... not football ..and these brand clubs now know that they have an even better negotiating position if they sell their own rights... this WILL happen, its why the Glaziers were prepared to borrow 700mil USD to buy Man U, and why they will make money long term...big money. When this does happen, I would like to think it will **** off Sky as viewing figures fall, because unless you are in that top 4 no one will watch your club. Those clubs will see further falls in rvenue and a further errosion of competition - thing is, considering that probaly 85% of those with sky subscriptions in the UP and those prepared to watch in China and the like are only interested in the top 4, Sky will be quids in by buying only the rights to the top 4, they will be saving money... the key then is for teh rest to simply refuse to play them... which leads nicely to the Euro super league... Personnally i dont give a flying feck if it were to happen becasue I am sick of teh arrogance of these clubs dictating football finance... the problem is what it means for the clubs that remain, there wouldsimply not be enough cash left for teh domestic clubs to hold onto anyone who is of any quality as the media cash follows the top 4 whores into Europe like the pimp it is... Sky, Greed, poncy players with diamond earings, agents - seriously all a bunch of tw***.

Of course we cant, but we CAN at least be positive and hopeful. As many have previously said, they feel uncomfortable with football and business.... BUT it was not just Lowe who wanted this, but its a fact of the modern era that the two are intrinsically linked, if we want to be playing in the top flight again... we only ahve to look at teh mess Newcastle are in because of a fan running the club with fan emotions no longer being a viable option in the commercial reality of teh modern game... we just need to hope that those who run the 'business' understand enough about it to realise that commercial success can only be possible by getting the footballing principles right first and foremost. Something tells me that given ML has built up a 2.5 mil business empire and places alot of trust in NC, what they dont know now, they will either learn or bring in appropriate advice. They are bound to make a few mistakes along the way, and our job right now is to to support them through the good and bad... IMHO

Of course! But dont be frightened by ROI. They will be well aware that to get a good ROI, we need to be top half premiership and secure financially when the club would probably be worth about 100 mil - ROI for ML and NC means success for SFC. The key to that success will be wise investment as necessary and a focus on the footballing needs built upon solid foundations...I know its unfashionable to say it, but despite what Lowe eventually did, he had that same mantra, build on foundations - he got the stadium and academy and 'living within ones means' bit right, but floundered when it came to building on that with a appropriate footballing focus and alienating the fans. I hope we give ML and NC the time and support because it wont be an overnight thing... 5 years to prem would be a good 'fan ROI' as far Im concerned.

I would totally agree with what you say with respect to not mentioning Wilde and Lowe and focussing on Crouch, but to be fair, there is a kind of clue in the thread title... ;-) I think everyone acknowledges that Crouch deserves credit for his personal financial support of the club in its darkest hours, which we have not seen from Lowe or Wilde. I think though that many on here who have an 'issue' with Crouch, are influenced by those that post that he could do no wrong? The problem with this is when we try and analyse mistakes made in the past is that it is often TOO difficult to separate the personalities from the errors of judgement, so we see rigorous defending or outright attack rather than a balanced assessment of the pros and cons. Crouch is a tricky one, we know he is passionate and generous - two great traits from which the club has benefitted - but he also fell into the ego trap (something that must be hideously difficult to avoid - I know I would find it difficult not to have my head turned by being in such a position) - I think there was certainly an element of 'wanting' to be loved by fans - afterall we never had any official confirmations of the genorosity often only leaked speculation - was it gifts or loans? etc and when you do look at those he backed, it could be 'suggested' that the horse he backed were those that maybe guarranteed him a greater role in future, rather than what was perhaps the best choice for the club? - I only suggest this because one of the biggest criticisms of Lowe and Wilde (and in many cases whollyjustified) is that they only made decisons for what was in it for themselves... In all cases Lowe, Wilde and Crouch the self interset manifested itself in different ways IMHO. Lowe, seemed to be obsessed with proving he was right- that he had the 'brains' to see that football could be managed in a different way to the old school. I think he disliked the traditional over reliance, as he saw it, on managers - who could come in spend loads on failures, then leave and the whole merrygoround started again - hense IMHO his desire to see changes in the set up - his ego meant he would stick it out until it was often too late and we have seen where that led us... I have often defended the ideal of looking at things differently, challenging the status quo and the accepted principles - because the accepted principles will no longer allow a small club to progress without substantial investment or heavy debt, unlike the days of Forest or even Saints in the early 80s... so naturally, I will still say the ideas were not bad, but ego driven execution meant poor implementation and ultimately failure. Wilde seemed a strange one when he first arrived on the scene. I remember well the grief because a few of us dared to challenge the fact that apart from a few platitudes there seemed no substance in his approach - empty promises but silver tongue that had fans spellbound to 'go wilde' for a few months... I can only summise that his interest lay primarily in a development opportunity - property and land that may well have led to a new revenue stream for the club long term as a positive benefit, but maybe a good opportunity for his business? That is naturally speculation, based on opinion, as when I met him, he seemed passionate and concerned by our fate, genuine in fact, and prepared to risk the wrath of fans by getting into bed with Lowe for the 'good of the club'. I guess I would just love to know his true motivation. I say that because if it was recognising a commercial opportunity that would provide him and his property development business a substantial income, but at the same time provide Saints with a decent long term revenue stream, I would have had NO problem with that - smaller clubs need to maximise the assets that they have and generate as much revenue from alternative sources as possible... i just wish there was an attitude that would have been receptive to such honesty (if this was indeed true) rather than perhaps the negativity many fans sling at 'business' in football. Crouch was kind of covered above. I think much of the criticism aimed at him, is actually more accurately criticism aimed at those who seemed to cannonise him completely, as if he is the only 'saint' in all this, yet his naiviety perhaps did seem to land him in trouble; shooting from the hip, agreeing to the spending, then falling out with Wilde, the comments re the PLC set up on live radio and finally backing the wrong horse. I dont think any of the 3 amigos are evil or deserve some of the grief they get, even the greatest 'evildoer' mr lowe, because I think they all in theiir own way wanted to see us successful... just had rather odd approaches to how to achieve it... It is perhaps ironic though, that given that the biggest criticism of Lowe was his bringing of business first rather than football first to the club, that we now have new owners and a new chairman who has stated the same and whose background in in banking... ;-)

TBF though, if this is true that Pinnacle were looking to finance by leaveraged debt, it would clarify why the adminstrators were prepared to grant exclusivity as this is a common (albeit not in football) that companies are sold - and possibly why Fry always hinted that he preferred teh Swiss bid... but once he set out teh criteria for exclusivity - he was duty bound i guess to grant this to the first party that ful-filled those criteria. The qusetion does arise though as to whetehr teh Swisss would have paid the 500K had pinnacle via crouch not done so? If so Why did not Crouch not recognse them for what they were?

Looks to have been swinging all over the place this morning so tricky conditions today. 230 or so for the Aussies might seem a low total, but if their bowlers can get teh smae help from the conditions we could yet get a result in this TEST as I could see them knocking England over for a similar total?

To be fair, if he has apassion for football and wants to be involved in running a club, Eastleigh is probably more suited to his budget? Whilst he was no doubt willing to do all he could for saints, his pot was probably not big enough to continually keep dipping into to bail us out without bankrupting himself.

True...you know I never had much time for him for various reasons but perhaps on balance it might be fair to say he was the only one of the 3 who were responsible for the mess to actually to something practical to put it right - and it would be fair to acknowledge of the 3 he was probably the least responsible.

Sad news. Great man and heartfelt condolencies to his family. Legend is used too often these days, but he was a true legend of the game.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MalC_A3_z7g