Frank's cousin

'Word Up'? wasn't that that dodge song by the bloke with a really feckin annoying whinny voice and bright red codpiece? ;-)

To be honest, I doubt Markus Liebherr would have been able to complete that much quicker if alone in the race from the start. He was able to move swiftly after Pinnacle collapsed as it appears much of the work had been done anyway - almost as if they expected Pinnacle not to complete? The due dilligence and legals would have still taken several weeks so maybe we may have had an extra 2 maybe 3 weeks, and as much as managers might complain, players were still on tehir hols for much of that time - we would probably have only really gained maybe 10 days from a practical perspective.. not sure how much of a disadvantage this has been as a result.

TBF though he was loaned out because his wages were unaffordable last season - and he must have understood that ideally we would have wanted to keep him, but simply could not afford it?

Rasiak is just one of those players who because of his languid style and body language, always has fans questioning commitment and effort - its just his style really. Add to this his undoubted desire for a move and its obvious he will get fans backs up. Its down to management and AP in particulra yto determine if he wants him and work on convincing Greg to stay and fight for the team, BUt if he is determined to move so be it , shame, but its best to clear out those who dont want to stay really.

Interestingly, I think it would be good to know whether it was TL who thought of the idea for a bid and then looked for backers - Bringing MLT on board would then have been a good strategy for the publicity it generated etc - (Although IMHO, these things are best done behind closed doors, if looking to raise funds to back a bid, then going the publicity route can help to gain momentum and interest from potential backers), or whether the main backer who later 'pulled out' approached Tony? If the latter, I would ask whether TL thought it a little odd that the 'backer' approached Pinnacle which seemed an odd choice for brokering such a deal? From those that I know who have spoken directly with TL, its pretty clear that this was a genuine attempt to save the club. I guess you do however need to ask whether it was naive on both teh part of TL and subsequently Leon Crouch to interpret the assurances they had from the backers as concrete, without the appropriate guarrantees? I dont thin slinging mud at Tony's direction is necessary or justified, but it would be good to hear his version of events directly so that this can be put to bed and we can move on.

NOt quite sure what you mean here - we were a club owned by multiple shareholders - therefore the only INVESTMENT to be attracted would have been if the the shares were sold and the new owner decided to put cash in... or donations - Its why some of us could not understand what Wilde meant by his mythical investors in the wings.... I do now and its called BULLS HIT. I think what continually happens in these debates is that ALL the issues are lumped together and many cloud any reasonabble discussion on the financial debate with the anger that comes from footballing errors - the two are linked, but also seperate. eg we saw that Lowe was a fan of the Dutch system especially Ajax's copnveyor belt of youth development several years ago - he would be into this system for two reasons - providing replacements for first teamers when their agents took them off elsewhere for more money, and because its a revenue stream in itself - as at Ajax with sellling the very best for good money which can be reinvested. As a Strategy its not bad, and I can see the logic in it... It failed though because the youth was ALL we had, not integrated into a maturer squad - the question then is, how much of that was down to the financial need to get rid, and how much choice did LOWE have. How much you blame Lowe for this seems to depend on what you believe about the finance. If you believe that we had enough cash to maintain the majority of the first team squad we had when we survived on the last day and supplement this with a the best of youth, then quite rightly you will think Lowe f***** up in getting rid of Pearson and bringing in the Dutch and also getting rid of experenced players on loans. If you believe that the financial situation was so dire that Lowe was forced to send these players on loan and work only with the cheap kids and thus looked at bringing in a duo with experience of working with kids (in his view) then you will see it differently - two sides and all that. I have no problem with all that, but both sides need to appreciate that WE DO NOT KNOW THE FACTS about the finances or how they influenced the decisions taken... we can only guess..

Trust me trousers - am not aroused ;-) NO problem with being normal football fans again - in fact it will be graet to be able to whinge as all other fans do... not focussed on politics. The difference now is that we have been told the strategy is a slow build,not big cash splash - some will disagree and moan that 'why cant we do it that way' others will be quietly satisfied... just gald we have an owner who will allow us to be normal whinging fans again ;-)

I would agree with that... what I am hoping for nowthough is that expectations are not raised beyond what anyone can reasonably expect....just because we may see other teams /owners prepared to invest (stupid money) on a potential quick fix or short cut to success... I believe the very reason that Saints DID spend 27 years in the top flight when much bigger teams came and went is because that was built on the very strong foundations laid down by Ted and subsequently Lawrie. I do think it was easier then as personality of the manager etc played a far greater role in attracting players - no/minimal agent activity and realistic wages and transfer fees meant a more level playing field - and we saw modest teams like Forest and Derby having success simply due to wise buys and good management styles as opposed to stupid levels of investment (although at the time when Forest bought Trevor Francis and made it the 1st 1 mil transfer it was considered obscene) - now to break into the top 4 you have to spend stupid which makes it worse for everyone - its already expensive for the rest of the clubs to invest enough to stay up year on year, let alone progress and without a sugar daddy prepared to lose money year on year, even clubs like Spurs and Villa etc would be struggling to maintain their top half positions... Those that dont ahve that luxury have to survive on borrowing and debt (pompey) or luck of good youth breaking through together and sound management which is not easy... We had one out of three and so the writing was on the wall. Would we have survived long term in the prem without investment? NO, and thats the crux really, we spent on average 8-10 mil a year on new players those last 4-5 years - with teh strategy of these playesr being complemented by the best of the youth coming thorugh - a good way to live within ones means - but this was not enough, even had the money been spend more appropriately - that's accepted now. What is still not fully appreciated by some though is how we would have funded any further spending. Many blame the PLC and the limitations of the diverse shareholdings. I actually believ that teh PLC served a purpose up to a point, but it should perhaps have always been only a stepping stone. The PLC and reverse takover did two things, provided a cash injection into the club and also created the financial controls necessary to satisfy the stricter regulatory requirements that in turn in combination with increased revenues from Broadcasting, allowed SFC to secure the necessary loans for SMS... something we may well ahve struggled with ahd we been under private ownership with noone willing to secure their own personal assets against said loans. The problems of course are also well known.. the need for dividends etc and the potential or shareholder infighting which contributed to the mess afer relegation. With ML I ahve real faith that the club will rebuild strong foundations first. Yes we are all desperate to see rapid progress, but rapid progress tends to be transient and can only be sustained if the money continues to flow from the pockets of the owner which is never guarranteed. Having the financial stabilty with appropriate investment is the way to go IMHO and although some may mourn the lack of a 'name' like Sven, quietly going about our business based on a realistic financial strategy is by far the best approach. Personnally, I like Herr Liebherr's style and in Cortese he has a shrewd, talented and pragmatic deputy... I have a smile on my face about Saints for the first time in 5 years ;-) Now we just need to remain patient and supportive while teh plans are allowed to mature. Bring it on!

TBH we were the same as many clubs in the lower divisions who we could perhaps never understand why they never seemed to 'push on or for promotion' - because without a sugar daddy, they lived within their means and thus stayed in their respective divisions as the years passed - If they get lucky with a few good youth players, the books are so finely balanced they need to cash in so do not see any progress... In the prem teams that ant to survive now see the need for squad improvements annually and increasing wages just to STAND still, let alone 'push on' - and if they do push on , the very best talent is poached anyway so where is no incentive...;-( We may have declined without investment irrespective of the overspend, that is true, but the process would maybe have been a bit slower and we would hopefully have avoided the -10 points and admin - who knows.... but hey whatever L decides to invest, I think we wuill see building from the ground up, and we have the security that will help attract and keep players... good times ahead, maybe not as quickly as we would all like, but good times none-the-less

I think this should really be spending or spending wisely - overspending is the source of many woes...

Thing is a 'headline grabbing' signing would only be comming for the money - we cant attract 'stars' (evensay CCC stars) at our current level - so why waste money? We need to build a squad capable of competing and winning in THIS division which as ML has said will require a level of investment APPROPRIATE to the level we are playing in. right now you dont need to spend a fortune, but spend wisely..save the big spend for when we are challenging for promotion to the prem

Uhm... the old chestnut...dangerous teritory really ;-) IMHO, we do tend to see it maybe all as too black and white. No doubt, Lowe, even if unintentionally, was a key factor in the first relegation, but maybe not for the reasons many see as obvious...The manager instabilty was always going to have a huge impact, and mistakes made here by Lowe cant be argued against... 'players leaving because of no ambition' - pure bull sheidt... players left for more money, and we did not have it whatever rubbish some ex players spout in the media about where did all the cash go... SMS and the academy and improvements to the training ground ARE gtood things to happen to Saints, where the argument starts is that some believe this cash should have been focussed on the first team... but the reality it was less than a Rory Delap per year - and provided the infrastructure that we needed. These things DO NOT excuse the mistakes made, but they should be accepted as positives because they WERE. But yes Lowe need sto accept responsibilty for that relegation, but the players also need to accept they did not perform. Wilde and Crouch talked a good game, but ultimately did not really have teh funds to match their promises... I think they found out teh hard way that maybe it was not that simple afterall balancing appropriate spending to meet the ambitions of both fans and the club with the reality of football finance outside the Premiership. Well intentioned investment made and already deep hole that much deeper and left the door open for Lowe to return... albeit IMHO too late from a financial perspective, it has to be acknowledged that whilst I like the idea of challenging preconceptions and trying new things, the Dutch experiment was a bad error - the results prove this so it cant be argued against. Had we kept Pearson, what the results would have been is another argument - I still believe we would have struggled but who knows, and what impact it would ahve had on the gate and thus revenues would only be guesswork, but many believe we would have possible just about survived... My guess is we would have survived, but then been relegated when we went into admin - so would have started this division but without the -10... Ultimately how you feel about Lowe tends to be based on a combination of things, whether you accept any positives, whether you accept that there were other factors which influenced relegation, whether you see football as so important that it illicits strong or even aggressive emotions, whether you believe alot of the urban myths that have sprung up about him and his time here, whether you think ambition should be realised through spending (what we did not have) to live the dream, but ultimately whether you believe we could have achieved more in the prem, without additional revenues. An interesting question might be... had we made (through some miracle) a 25 million profit one season in the prem, I think we woudl ahve seen Lowe divide this as follows: 6 mill - shareholder dividends 5 mil - expansion of the academy and training ground 10 mil new players 4 mil share buy back Whereas I would guess most fans would have wanted at least 20 mil on new players, accepted a 1mill or so dividend and 4 mil investment in academy etc... I can understand that, but it probably simply illustrates why many fans disliked him so... personally, I would have been happy with a compromise of 17 mil on players, 5 on infrastructure and 3 on dividends and nothing on share buybacks which do nothing but use the clubs money to increase the value of individuals holdings...

FF mentions Ex players and in some respects i agree... I remember a few season back Peter Rodrigues used to come to games and sit near me in the Itchen - most fans did not even recognise him! Players from this era never earned the kind of money they do now and it would be nice to think we could show our appreciation now and then. Personally I think the answer lies with the new board recognising that players past and Ex directors are a part of the clubs history - We can arguiue all we like about who merits what and who does not, but I think its quite simpe really - no free tickets but invites to the Directors box during the season as guests as appropriate. We need to get away from our own judgemental approach as to who is more deserving and accept that the good the bad and the down right ugly have all played a part in our history and be grown up enough to move on?

Fair enough - and of course I felt the pain of relegation same as the next man/woman, but effecting me personnally? I know its all relative, but for me relegation IS part of the game and having first started supporting saints when we were NOT in the top flight, I guess I saw the 27 years as a bonus as opposed to a right, especially when you consider how many other clubs have had their downs in that time, and we were/are a relatively small club. The SMS move ironically did raise expectations in that we were suddenly on a par with Boro, Sunderland, and that ilk in terms of revenues, but given that premiership survival was becoming more and more dependent on revenue, I always thought we would struggle without the Sugar Daddy luxury...so maybe I was more prepared for it, who knows? OK so bad management decisions and then the subsequent internal fighting added fuel to those flames, but ultimately without either finding new revenue sources or borrowing (which was my idea of a nightmare) there woudl come a time where we simply did not have the investment necessary just to stand still, let alone progress, so was the club ever going to match fans expectations. Because of his errors, soem totally genuine, others perhaps errors in some fans eyes only, Lowe became the symbol of that failure... My opinions have never been based on support or otherwise of individuals but on trying to uinderstand how and why decisons were made and their consequences - and maybe to present some of those alternative views when the weight of opinion was very much against a man, and if UP is honest, perhaps we would have been more forgiving had Lowe a more likeable personality, or had he personally donated 20mil... yet failure would still be failure and that is surely what is being judged? Finally on to the famous quote ... I suggest as have many (although not many footballers) that the quote was heavily laced with irony?

To be fair though you cant compare the two eras - in 1980 you could attract the current European player of the year for an annual salary of 140K - equivalent today of about £15-20k a week... so it was possible for a smaller club to compete - we also got have the gate of every game so LM did NOT have the financial restrictions that we had when the premiership took hold - when was the last time someone outside the top 4 won something major outside the FA cup or Blackburn' s sugar dddy funded win? So to be fair, getting to the final and finishing 8th is not bad in comparison...ifr you wnat to be fair that is ;-)

I dont understand how you must see everything in black or white - there are shades of gray with all the protagonists as well.. eg. You can admire and respect and have affection for Lawrie because of all his achievements yet still NOT agree with everything he has said and done in the media - trust me that is possible. With Lowe, I cant say I had any like or dislike towards a man I did not know and did nothing to me personally... he made a lot of errors of judgement that directly impacted on the performance of a football club, and that contributred greatly to our decline, but he also had some ideas that had merit but struggled to be implemented often because of old school mentalities and in some cases prejudices + he did get a few things right - and put very simply I cant argue with a policy that invested heavily in youth, and tried to live within its means financially. That is NOT supporting a man, but supporting a strategy the two are DIFFERENT. As to attacking LM or Crouch, Can you not see how criticising or questioning their actions should be down independently and on theirown merits and have feck all do with how dirrrent they might be from Lowe's approach? Just because it was diofferent to Lowe, does not automatically make it good... same as just because some like myself criticised Couch et al did not mean I blindly supported Lowe... its this illogical crap that gets my goat...

Dont think thats right Wes, The honest answer is there is no real such thing as 'Loweites' just some that a) did not really hate him and b) recognised merit in some of the approaches if not the execution - and maybe most importantly c) which just try and can some semblance of balance accepted - eg post responses against the ridiculous bias of posts such as 'To have Lowe luvvies on here complaining about someone's ego, strikes me as a bit ironic. At least Lawrie's ego brought us Keegan, Ball, Osgood and Shilton. Lowe's brought us Wiggley, Portfliet, Woodward and Clifford.' Whilst the above is true, its perhaps more balanced if you include some of some of Lawries carp signings and then go on to say Strachan, Hoddle, Neimi etc which just makes it sound a bit different...

The thing about speaking your mind is that you have to at least remain calm and accurate if you want to a) appeal to all and b) maintain credibilty... and just because you happen to agree with what he has said does not mean everyone does... he fell into that urban myth trap for example with the 'where has all the money gone' rhetoric on radio when a review of the audited accounts would have provided a more detailed response than the schophants nodding 'wisely' in the media? Thats why he would have been better to stay out of it... Not quite sure what you mean by the last sentance... very feckin arrogant if you are implying that those who in effect dont agree with you are not welcome as fans - if thats what you mean, its the likes of you we can do without, because The new era is about inclusiveness and togetherness, not this ongoing divisive boll ox... dont you get the VERY simple fact that fans can have different opinions on these issues? Its called 'Grown Up' debate and is based on reason and common sense.....

Its an interesting point - although as president Ted had no real Power, I bet he still had a strong influence in teh boardroom and also in the 'culture' of the club... perhaps its no coincidence that after his death, is when things started to slowly decline?

To be honest - I am not too fussed but the spending - the fact remains that player A is 2 x as good as Player B - just because someone is prepared to spend £80 mil on player A and only £8 mil on B does not make A suddenly 10 x as good! Teams have shown that with the right manager, development and coaching a team can achieve beyond the sum of its parts - the trick is less about spending ten of millions on players, and more about keeping your own when they have a couple of good seasons and agents tap them for triple wages at another club... and a short cut to trophies...

Suffered from being alone up front with no midfield pushing on ... I hope we see two up front this seaosn if only because its more entertaining, but for me is also the key to us actually winning games - width, midfield not sitting too deep and two up front... simple

Dont have an issue with either Lawrie or Crouch in the Directors box - As guests of whoever... Crouch did what he thought was best for the club and was generous with it - It did not agree with everything he did and cant say I ever warmed to him, but that takes nothing away from his contribution and the knowledge that he would have believed he was doing the right thing. With Lawrie there is lot of water under the bridge - his achivements can never be tarnished because they stand in the record books and for that he should be fondly remembered... but as he did enter the politics and nail his colours to the mast, he CAN be quizzed and questioned as to his thoughts and opinion on those matters - you enter the game, you have to accept not all will agree, especially as his opinion is sought by the media and because of his legacy he has a high profile... Its because of the high profile that those who may not necessarily agree will be more vocal... The only thing I would say is that maybe he would have been better to stay out of it all in recent years. I am sure Ted would have had a few words to say about times during his last few years, but he maintained a dignified silence and thus retained his justifiably 'elder statesmen' of the game tag. For those who have recently disagreed with him (Lawrie), it would have been nicer to just be able to think of him purely for what he achieved. With a brighter future, and hopefully less pollitical rows to come, it should mean we can all go back to just remembering him for what he contributed to SFC on the pitch and this debate become redundant?

Too narrow (NO surprize our goal came from single time we went wide and to the touchline), way to deep, giving Ajaz total freedom in midfield - pointless playing 1 up front and then having no support comming through - Kelvin was strong, Jo Mills looks a prospect and from teh passing for our goal something for Pardue to work with... but we are SOOOO unfit - we need to get them running up sand dunes fast

TBF . the fact that ML has LISTENED to advisors and appointed an Engish manager with the lower league experience should be taken as agood sign. He has admitted that he knows little about the english lower leagues although he is a football fan... now it may turn out to be an inspired choice given that AP will have a lot to prove as did Strachan when he joined, it may turn out to be utter sh ite but that is the nature of the game... the fact remains he has taken a punt based on ADVICE rather than assuming an all encompasing knowledge because he owns the club... that shows a decent brain rests in the head of ML - even if pardue does not work out. We need experience and dedicationa and stabilty - now is the time for putting down foundations, not building on the soft ground we have after all the recent turmoil and remember its a long term plan not a quick fix... results will determine Pardues legacy , not politics and thats the thing like most about the situation.

Yeah and teh stupid F***** only came second in the Mascot National behind that git Cyril the swan - should have tripped the bloody bird up...