Frank's cousin

Just when I loose the will to live, and despair at the playground 'bullies' s******ing in their dmap bedsits, along comes Bearsy to restore faith in the forum Long live the Bear!

Part of the problem here seems to be because this argument is stuck in a cycle of predicted attendances - and the assumption that attendances are the only factor in determining a go/no go decision (not including the practical issues of planning, adjacent land ownership etc)... when in reality, even with prem stability and an ST waiting list, this offers no guarrantees for future attendance levels, especially given possible relegation/ecomonics etc... Any stadium conbstruction or development project is always going to associated with a level of risk - not necessarily financially as you can forecast and plan the budget to ensure payments are met, even on a L1 budget/attendance level (if needing loans to fund the cap Ex) - no the risk is associated with the numbers going - will fans come even with success? Because no one likes to see huge numbers of empty seats and quite rightly you question the need if there is no demand. But looking at the pictures it looks more like a modest expansion (realistic numbers to generate increased revenues from a % of sell out games (not necessarily all) + a major revamp/asthetic update + some sort of conference facility as an additional revenue generator. All costs money, but there is logic in updating the facility if it makes the venue more attactive for fans and other activities. You cant put a price on it, but you cant underestimate the value of 'image' as well, both in attracting punters and players and encouraging new fans (Surely Turkish will appreciate this what with his own personal style obsession). I will be about more than simply adding up the attendence figures and projecting revenue, It's also about NC and ML wanting to leave their mark, create a club that can be the best it can. Timing will depend on the funding source and level of risk associated with the borrowings and yes demand will play a part in that, but not the only part.

Why bother? So you can mock and twist it and laugh? (the standard response from many on here, if a) they simply dont understand something, b) they dont agree with it....

Eloquently and diplomatically put... but had it been a reasonable 'debate' there would have been no problem... it was the condecending and patronizing nature of those dismissing the idea that a reasonable business case could be made for BOTH wait and see and a more rapid approach meant that thread decended into the usual beatch fest....

You know what you come across as in your trolling - you like to see yourself as this young modern rightwing defender of mother England, and its 'traditions and history' Tory boy extremis - not sure why you picked that particular character as your web wind up as its frankly pretty hideous. Architecture evolves and whilst there is rightly beauty in the historic buildings and they should be preserved, being stuck in the past and wanting receations is just whimiscal nostalgia. SMS is not interesting or characterful becsause its cheap crap design... the facelift concept has to work with that and makes a pretty decent job in my opinion.

Like the conceptual drawings, quite a European feel to it with the space around the ground etc (which will please Dune). NO idea what the time frame is, either for planning in principle or detailed proposals, but thats surely not the point? This is simply about demonstrating the thinking and long term aspiration which can only be a good thing. Without wanting to start that whole impossible argument about timing again, its should maybe at least be pointed out that NC does not normally like to hang around. Although its impossible to get most to accept, you can make sensible business cases for both a long term plan and a more rapid approach... NC will decide, but nice to see that these initial concepts provide some individuality for the stadium and gives us a flavour of the aestetic they have in mind.

Guess all depends on your own personal philosophy and what you feel is an appropriate level of risk to take, based on the inconclusive evidence/data that currently exists, and potentially whether or not there wil be any significant impact. My twopenneth on the various discussion points: 1. Scientific eveidence (and my view as a scientist of sorts) As others have suggested, Science is all about collecting data. Formulating hypothsis and designing robust controlled studies that will either support or invalidate the hypothesis. If these experiments are repeatable and with appropriate time, always generate the same results, then you get to teh point where it becomes a theory. Again this is not 100% proof, but in all probablity it is likely to be true. With climate change, the tricky thing is whether you look at these things with a geological time perspective (100s of millions of years) or one that is more comprehensible to humans 300-500 years etc. If you look at it from a geoplogical time perspective, the current increases in temp are not really a biggy, the planet is cooling, but teh climate fluctuates due to many events and cyclic issues from polar field reversals, plate tectonics (and associated volcanic activity), but the biggest shift was what created our oxygen atmosphere in teh first place - the evolution of plant matter... but I digress If you look at it from a 200 year scale, or since the industrial revolution, I think its pretty well accepted that we have changed our environment significantly, most notably deforrestation, and fossil fuel burning... which WILL have had an impact on the overall chemsitry of the atmosphere. It is also accepted that such change, will undoubtedly impact on climate, but what is not understood is what kind of long term impact this may or may not have... and for me that is the key issue. We do not know. So it comes down to your personal philosphy. Indsutry and politics are so intertwinned and naturally self serving that they will always defend their approach - its simply not in their interests to support any evidence or data that suggests they are impacting on this. The Green movement, is again subject to much political hipocracy, even if at the grass roots level its simply folk who are have a genuine concern about the environment. Should we be worried about what might happen in 200, 500, 20,000 years? Some will say nope, I'lll be gone, others have a diffferent stance in that we have a duty of care What about all this damage we have done and species we have wiped out? Well species do come and go, typically a species exists for about 2 million years, should we then care? Guess it depends again on what kind of world you want to live in... one which is is only self serving, or one that takes care of its environment to the benefit of all. But a note of caution is simply this: there are now 7 billion of us on the planet. We have consumed a fair amount of the natural resources and due to political divisions and economic self interest we cant even feed everyone now, or ensure all children get passed their 5th birthday - that is what we have created... some are comfortable with that others are not.... but if we dont do something about that, AND climatic change does impact as some models predict, we could see even worse issues with global famine and the strife and political turmoil that will inevitably follow. Maybe not in our life time, but our Grandchildren may well be looking back at us and thinking what a bunch of fricken arseholes we were.

Oh... thought this was another Pompey thread....

Thing is Alps, this kind of depends on your expectations - I believe Adkins has what it takes to be a top manager, but I have no idea of how quickly he can learn and get realise his full potential...which I believe he will achieve at some point. The question I guess is more, will saints fans (and NC) be willing to give him that time (which I believe we should no matter what happens)? We know that NC is driven to making Saints the best they can be. This will not happen over night as we are not in the 100mil transfer budget bracket, so its about getting good raw young talent and coaching teh best out of them, which I believe Adkins can already and has proven he can do. Tactically, its now a different ball game... do we continue to try and play our way, or have a park the bus plan where necessary? Personnaly, I am more for long term approach, but keep playing our style, even if it means the odd tonking. The frst few games look tough, but I actually think we are playimng those top sides at the best time, before they get into their rhythm and whilst many of tehir international stars are still tournament weary? Sometimes its simply just better to have someone at teh helm we can respect as a person and be proud off - which I believe we do in Adkins. Bring it on I say. We should enjoy it no matter what happens. Adkins will be a top 6 manager one day - if we have the patience it will be with Saints. (IMHO)

Its what makes teh whole takeover by a major creditor dodgy.... Chinney offers 2p in the £ knowing that he will vote for it and sort of ensure the CVA is accepted as he knows IF the player debt is reduced he will ed up with a pot of cash from the left over PPs for himself and not having to divy this up to the other creditors.... Given how we are told that teh FSA is so strict, it still surprises me that insolvency law is so immoral... Its is clear that the best deal for ALL creditors is that in which chinney only gets his fair %, yet the rules allow him to in effect ensure he gets a bigger share (proportionallyhe could get 40p in the £) owed simply by keeping the rotting corpse alive until the PPs are due and screwing the rest for 2p.... how can this be possible? The simplest and fairest solution is that either the PPs are ONLY available if distributed equally amongst all creditors, or should liquidation take place, also made available to all creditors... but the world football is rotten in this regard and its amazing that thsoe with their snouts in the trough get away with it and the media/public/legislators turn a blind eye... its as though the collective country has a love in for the 'loveable rogue' mentality within the game...

My thinking is that the 24mil is the value of current deferred wages AND the total cost of paying out the remaing contracts over the time they have left to run... at present the debt is only around 8mil or so as I understand it, but increasing with everyday the players are not paid or do not walk. The reduction 'by two thirds' happens automatically if the high wage earners chose to leave or are sold... which is currently not happening - My understanding is that Chinney is only prepared to buy the club IF the value of football creditor debt is 8mil or below, in effect covered by the 14 mil parachute payments leaving 6 mil or so for him to play with/claw back. There will be no 'deal' to reduce 24 mil. The only 'deal' will be compromise agreements with players who agree, in whch case they are no longer owed the rest of their contract, and thus the football creditor debt (24mil) is reduced... and there would be no infringement of the football creditor rule or impact on the golden share Pompey are hoping players will leave voluntarliy to pave the way for a take over and the club is emotionally blackmailing players to try and get them to do so.... the same players who were heralded in the media in Jan for their LOYALTY (seriously you could not make this up) LOL Someone should email the creepy bloke Taylor at the PFA and ask him how he feels that members who signed contracts in good faith and were heralded as loyal in Jan are now being emotionally blackmailed in the media to leave and tear up their contracts.... would make for an interesting response. PTS could in theory better chinneys deal, as they would probably not need to hold back 6mil of parachutes for themselves and us all 14 mill for creditors...if the the players leave voluntarily thus screwing Chinney (which is what he is so worried about)

If liquidated he is right in that the players will get nbothing from teh club...but he fails to mention that the players wil be sorted by PFA - the only way teh players 'get nothing' is if they walk away..... Like I said this is criminal ina way, as in effect its an employer putting pressure on employees to leave through emotional blackmail, as tehir contracts are water tight and need to be paid in full for a golden share to be granted...

I thoigh they only got 7mil next season and 7 after that, was it not split over 4 years?

Sadly just more mud slinging at the players ...who signed in good faith... and are now expected to walkaway for nothing.... they have balmed eveyone else so not surprized, and they are an easy target.... PFA should behaviong a word as its in effect constructive dismissal, forcing them out with emotional blackmail... sickening like everything else to do with that quagmire of a club

Can see you being the first to strut around in a brown shirt and jack boots.... come on, cards on the table, age, job, education? because you constantly come across as an ignorant troll of the highest order, an extreme tory boy fantasist funnier than Enfield's. Reread your biggoted comment regarding us 'letting China and others 'rise up'' if you need an example of your arrogant idiocy.

er why?

Fair points - would like to see banks introduce Swedish style 75 year mortgages that are 'passed on' with inheritance - would take the stress out of it for FTBs and the banks...

Off topic I hang my head in eternal shame So its all gone quiet on the Eastern Front. The Ruskies invaded, pillaged and withdrew, leaving their fat in the pipes. So currently we have: Chinney, following his public divorce from the slapper club, has been tempted into a possible reconciliation, but as she still owes him following running up the credit cards on expensive clothes little realizing that she still looked like a cheap slapper...dressed in expensive clothes... he's insisting on a water tight pre nup that she gets rid of wardrobe first... shame nobody wants the soiled overpriced goods - although she has yet to try ebay. Meanwhile who owns the house is still contested, yet detriorating, fat in the pipes, without the cash to call the plumber.

Sorry Pap, its not anything to do with maintaining house prices or letting them fall, but its vital that they remain at a level above the value of the loans against them. If suddenly millions are in negative equity, this causes the panic in teh lenders and in the owners that could easiliy mirror the problem that started the mess in the US. House prices will stablise based on affordabilty - they always do. The 18%+ growth for 2 years is/has being corrected...as it always does... the problem was at the time it was fuelled by banks lending 6x salary and more at rates that were unsustainable... what I never understood is why banks panic, when the property they lend on is in negative equity - if you take a longer term view, 30-40 years, property prices rise on average about 5-6% per year, which is a good return... why did they not just ride it out? Maybe simplistic, but surely thats the point, keep it simple, understand investment is long term and kep calm.... sadly the finances of nations is goiverned by the stupid feckers in the city, especially thsoe that hedge, sell short, and bet on future down turns.... teh money always goes somewhere, and when the rest of us are struggling, someone is smiling.

Indeed...remember the guffaw when I read in Tom Bowers's book that when Wham Manager he signed some 100+ players in 4 years of which only 18 or so even made a single 1st team appearance = + the infamous transfer of that swedish player for who West ham paid close to 3 mil, yet the swedish club got 800K - the rest went....? He is good with the right players, no doubt but as others have said, I think he is hopeless at motivation and management - a fact that was highlighted in not keeping us up... that squad he inherited had finished 12 the previous season, and was simply on a poor run and demotivated. A decent motivator and improver would have kept us up.

.... makes no diffrence really. Gaps in fubnding between top and bottom of PL will get proportionally larger and everyone has the extra so only advantage is to players and agents. Its not as if its only saints (if we stay up) that get an extra 14 mil....

Apologies to all, but it is realted to PTS ... honestly. the 30-40 mil a year figure is a 'pull out of the air' figure on the type of investment any club in the 60mil Turnover in Prem league, would need to make a step up. My question was/is how can a club raise this cash and the need to maintain it, unless an owner simply gifts it? Or doing a pompey and borrowing from banks, HMRc Charities etc. If we are to continue to progress, how will it be funded? I think it was relevent to make teh reference to saints as we used to be... demanding such investment, yet without ever identifying how it was possible. Do fans really care? We criticise teh skates for simply accepting the cup and lording it up, but would we do the same?

Twas me... sorry... his name will not soil this thread again. (In mitigation, was in Pompey context re. investment and where is comes from - we laugh at the DCSBs as they seemed to attract dodgy owner after dodgy owner - who borrowed bank/peoples cash to fund a cup and ego - just highlighted we have always at very least beeen run honestly)

NOt interested in pushing on with the Lowe issue.... but on a principle, what is this fabled 'investment' that we should have pursued? Free money? Gifts? as surely this is the only way of doing it without increasing liabilities in chasing a dream? Pompey are a classic case of letting the owners 'invest' new money - money they did not have and had to borrow from banks - or money they want and always wanted back (perhaps a shade cleaner ) .... The Liebherr estate recently demonstrated perhaps what true 'investment' is - money provided to drive growth and increase the VALUE of the asset. Buy for 13 mil, invest 20mil and see the asset grow from 13 mil to 60mil... good business. But this is rare and only really possible when you conside that the core infrastructure was in place and we were priced reasonably - so growth was possible with a realistic investment level. Think about it, Unless you are the 'hobby' of someone throwing his kids inheritance away, there is simply no value in general in 'investing' in football - there are never the returns to make it a sound business practice... its why NC has said we must be self sustainable in the prem. Many do chastise Lowe for not attracting investment - can someone pleas explain how he wa smeant to convince rich folks to gift the club 30-40mil or so, and continue to do so each year (to cover the hiddeous wages) withoutr eithyer 100% equity or a rewasonable return that would not have been affordable?

Always going to be judged on the footballing side of things though Gemmel - the way of life. I remember the desire of fans to see major investment in the playing squad to build on the success of 2003/4 - but still to this day I have never heard a rational idea on how that would be 'funded'. Should we have borrowed more? This is what I mean, Its easy to sit and say 'he should have attracted more investment', but that is from those who simply dont get how a PLC operates, some one coming in and spending 25 mil on shares to take over, would not necessarily have injected cash as a 'gift' more likely a loan - and as we have seen down the road, unless converted to equity, can have diasterous consequences. I do think its to our credit that we questioned all decsions, that fans not satisfied with the way things were going demanded change, but I also think that we based this all on the footballing issues and at times failed to recognise the value of other elements that built the foundations on which Which Markus and NC desired to take the club forward. Pompey had teh best part of 350 mil from 7 years in the prem - at 50mil of that they could have build a nice new 22-25k stadium and redeveloped the surrounding land... they chose to spend that and an additional 120 mil on buying a piece of silverware... and now its nearly game over. Those few that get it have no voice and the majority still think its all down to poor sacha having a loan called in.... failing to see that it was a 'Loan' from a bank, not Sasch's own cash mind....