Ken Tone

The thread about Skacel has already deteriorated onto the usual irrelevant and pointless bitter argument pro and anti Lowe, so forgive me starting a new thread on a closely related topic. Do all managers (not just Wotte) have strangely blinkered views of where players play? Quite apart from Skacel who is apparently now seen only as a left back in spite of playing much of his career in midfield, we also have BWP who was (is?) a striker, yet seems to be a left winger in Wotte's mind, presumably because he saw Poortvliet play him there a few times. Personally I don't agree with all the criticism of McGoldrick here as lazy etc ...he does work hard, just isn't all that good!.... but if we need an alternative up front, why on earth hasn't BWP been given a chance there alongside Saga? Even when he is used as a sub, it is as winger of sorts, or at best as the left side of a 3 man attack when we are desperate. Does no one tell managers where players used to play before they personally saw them?!! K.

Anyone else notice Sheff utd have signed Lupoli on loan. He must have been confused by all the red and whie stripes I suppose. Is he eligible to play tonight if the game really is on. (snowing slightly here in whitchurch as I speak) K.

the fact fans who could, might have looked into wilde and posted their findings for us all to see.... Errm. ... I did. Look back at the archive of the old forum if that is still possible. I said I'd had some dealings with one of his companies, though not him personally, that gave me concern. However at that time anyone who even hinted that Wilde might not be all he was being cracked up to be was slated as a lowe luvvie. No one wanted to hear. Not that it would have made a jot of difference. Money for shares is all that would make a real difference. I don't want either of Lowe or Wilde at my club, but I am powerless, as we all are, unless any of you have a few spare million? K.

If the poor bugger really did pay £60k himself to get out of his old contract and he really was as lowly paid here as some suggest, he surely wouldn't have been able to afford to just resign without some sort of pay-off .. which would have required a 'resignation' as part of the deal. K.

Almost, but not quite what I understood. The rules said that we had to offer him a contract on at least what he'd been paid to get anything for him..which was more than academy wages. He was already a 'senior' player, so I very much doubt we'd have offered to pay him *more* as such. We didn't want him to accept the offer. He was out of favour here, both because of his thieving and because of his erratic form, but if we'd offered him no contract he'd have gone for nothing. (Pompey were supposedly interested at the time.) If we offered him a contract and he refused it, to go elsewhere on a free transfer, we'd have got compensation under FIFA rules because he was under 23. So we offered him a contract to protect our financial position, I suspect (but am not ITK) hoping he'd go and we'd get cash. Then no one did actually want him (thanks yet again Redknapp) and our bluff was called. Hence on contract but not wanted -- hence loaned out to save his wages. Those who are now starting to rave about him seem to have forgotten a) he's a git b) he was rubbish for us in recent seasons, though admittedly after a very promising start c) he was also rubbish on loan at sheffield united He was as I say a promising youngster... looked good alongside Walcott.. and maybe will indeed yet turn out to be a good player, but football is littered with promising youngsters who've not made it for various reasons. K.

I thought the whole conspiracy theory over his 'delayed international clearance' was that if he played for us, FIFA rules meant that he could not be loaned out again this season .. or at least not abroad which was the most likely destination for him. So since he has played, surely he is not now likely to go this season? As I've said before, this season's reality is bad enough without people spreading dismal rumours for the sake of it. If do you have a source to back up 'on loan this weekend ' then please give it. If you're just being miserable for no reason, then please stop. K.

Me too. I know the bloke loves saints and yes I know he helped bring Le Tiss through the youth teams etc, but for god's sake play a different tune Dave ...and why on earth can't his fellow commentators just give him a simple phonetic spelling of the players' names. The first time you hear him **** up a name it is mildly amusing ..the thirty-first time it is irritating. He's paid to be a commentator now, not a comedy act. It is unprofessional of him to make so little attempt at learning the players names. K.

Quite. I suspect Bournemouth, Luton etc *tried* not to have football-related debts too, but if you're going skint, banks tend to play dirty. Clapham saint's description of how administration would work is spot on. But if anyone wants a less clear and more patronising analogy .... It's a bit like letting someone else drive your car --- a complete stranger, who won't deliberately crash as such, but won't care about long-term maintenance and servicing, and who may not want to go where you want to go --- but you are forced to sit there as his passenger anyway. K.

Here is what I posted on the 9th>>>>> I feel obliged to say clearly at the start of this post so that some might actually read it rather than just react to it in blind prejudice --- that I do not like Lowe, like Wilde even less, and whilst accepting his good motives, simply do not rate Crouch as being very clever. There seem to be some fans who see administration as a minor inconvenience, worth suffering to get rid of Lowe. a) Administration is much worse than that. The administrator's job is not to run a good football club; it is to run any sort of football club, with the main aim of getting money back for the creditors. He looks for a buyer but his main responsibility is to see creditors get their money. Keeping the club viable in the short term is a secondary aim in achieving that. Keeping it viable in the long term is no priority at all. So unless a big investor suddenly appeared to buy us up and pay off all the debts etc ( about as likely as us getting promotion this year) the administrator would sell off anything sellable, including all our young talent, probably at a 'fire sale' bargain price, release on free transfers any other players he can persuade to go, and sell the ground too if he can get a buyer who will guarantee *for the short term only* to lease it back. No guarantee not to evict the club and use for housing in a few years time once the recession is over. Many more 'incidental' staff would lose their jobs ...stewards, kitman, ticket office, etc. Training ground would be sold. The academy would almost certainly close completely, with all facilities sold off. b) There would be a fair chance that Lowe would then re-buy his way into the club for a nominal sum. Bates did it. Didn't one of the many recent owners of Bournemouth do it too? It is not uncommon for management or other insider buy-outsto follow administration in industry . So we could go though real pain, and then still have Lowe. Do not wish administration on the club if you really are a fan. K. The situation is still the same, but as a minor addition I'll add that presumably all loan players would immediately be returned to their clubs. But on the bright side, in response to someone else's comment about season tickets, I think that we were given reassurance about that last year, to the effect that as long as the club remained trading, season tickets were safe. K.

Well they justified it for Bournemouth -- and was it Rotherham or Luton? Why did you think Bournemouth started on -17 this season and are now possibly about to go out of the league ? It's as some posters keep trying to point out, administration is NASTY. If we end up owing tax, in effect we'll get -17 points next season as well as -10 this . At present I gather we do not owe taxes, but the danger is as we go absolutely skint will we be able to keep paying tax or will we go into debt there too? K.

As Minty says the new bit is the reference to the 3rd week in March. does anyone know any more about this? I thought that the points deduction carried over into the next season if a club went into administration after relegation was inevitable. Surely the date for that would vary according to the club's number of league points. It might not be inevitable until the ;last day of the season for some. Is this March date just a guess by the Mail reporter , or ....... K.

Qute agree. Poortvliet seems a decent bloke and I *want* him to succeed. I presume he's been piggy in the middle for many of Lowe's decisions, and not fully in control, but formation surely is down to him. Playing wingers on the wrong side is a reasonable thing to do occasionally. It unsettles the opposition defence and allows the winger to cut in and shoot on his best foot. But NB 'occasionally', not all the time. The particular irony of saturday's formation was that even with a left-footed player alrready on the right wing, he still sent a right-footed payer to take the corners...and vice versa. Every single corner was an outswinger. The move to 3-5-2 (I think?) was somewhere between bold and desperate, but it took an unforgiveable several minutes for the players to work out where they should be playing. K.

Well that's what makes football interesting to discuss. I always thought Mills looked better than Crainie .. or at least looked a better prospect. Crainie had (and presumably still has) class on the ball but, like Kenton and Baird, is too short to be a top CB and too slow to be a top RB, and I reckon he'll spend his whole career as a nearly man specialsing in neither one nor the other. Mills, I thought, had the height to develop into a good CB and showed real promise. I was very sorry he left. But at the time, I also thought he left for the money, not for first team football. I also thought Mandaric, rather than Redknapp, bought Craine just to upset us! K.

With Chelsea it's even more precarious than that. In effect all the money Abromovitch has put in is officially a loan. There is a view that he only bought Chelsea as way of having money safely stored out of Russia if he had to leave in a hurry. In any event if he loses interest they could have to pay the lot back suddenly, and no bank will lend them that much to do so. K.

Maybe you should try 'search this forum' before you reply? K.

Large numbers of posters on here were apparently certain that Surman and Lallana were off as soon as the transfer window opened. There were even claims back as early as november that Lallana had actually *already* been sold ..to spurs I think it was. That was in addition to the "he's going to Fuiham in exchange for Baird" statements. Anyone want to eat their words? Of course either or both may still go before the window closes, but it is clear that those confident claims of done deals were rubbish, or they'd have gone by now. Frankly the reality is bad enough without doomsayers making things seem worse than they are. K.

Simple. Because he has the potential to be a good player. (As has McGoldrick btw) K.

I feel obliged to say clearly at the start of this post so that some might actually read it rather than just react to it in blind prejudice --- that I do not like Lowe, like Wilde even less, and whilst accepting his good motives, simply do not rate Crouch as being very clever. There seem to be some fans who see administration as a minor inconvenience, worth suffering to get rid of Lowe. a) Administration is much worse than that. The administrator's job is not to run a good football club; it is to run any sort of football club, with the main aim of getting money back for the creditors. He looks for a buyer but his main responsibility is to see creditors get their money. Keeping the club viable in the short term is a secondary aim in achieving that. Keeping it viable in the long term is no priority at all. So unless a big investor suddenly appeared to buy us up and pay off all the debts etc ( about as likely as us getting promotion this year) the administrator would sell off anything sellable, including all our young talent, probably at a 'fire sale' bargain price, release on free transfers any other players he can persuade to go, and sell the ground too if he can get a buyer who will guarantee *for the short term only* to lease it back. No guarantee not to evict the club and use for housing in a few years time once the recession is over. Many more 'incidental' staff would lose their jobs ...stewards, kitman, ticket office, etc. Training ground would be sold. The academy would almost certainly close completely, with all facilities sold off. b) There would be a fair chance that Lowe would then re-buy his way into the club for a nominal sum. Bates did it. Didn't one of the many recent owners of Bournemouth do it too? It is not uncommon for management or other insider buy-outsto follow administration in industry . So we could go though real pain, and then still have Lowe. Do not wish administration on the club if you really are a fan. K.

Yes-ish. "Zigger zagger. zigger zagger. oi oi oi" was a chant invented in a play in the late 60s about football violence ..a sort of earlier 'Green Street'. It was then taken up by real football crowds in the even later 60s and into the 70s. Would be good to resurrect it for Saga. K

There never was much of a saga song. Always thought personally that 'zigger saga zigger saga, oi oi oi' was obvious , but I suspect most of you are too young to remember that chant. K.

How is the team even-further weakened? We've lost Cork and Pearce but arguably Schneiderlin is as good in midfield as Cork if he really is fit again now, and if this new Dutch centre half is any good, and if Saga is anything like Saga mk1 as opposed to Saga mk2, it could indeed be an improved team. None of the other loan returners, Pekhart etc, were any good. Surman and Lallana haven't gone yet in spite of all the predictions that they'd be gone by the end of the first day of the transfer window. Still quietly confident of promotion personally ;-) K.