Fowllyd

Hate to tell you this Phil, but we finished second in 1984 and the Heysel disaster happened in 1985. So we were in the UEFA Cup in 1984-5 - mind you, there were no megabucks in it back then. I agree completely about the blame games.

Jones attends the AGMs I believe. A couple of interesting points on this thread: first, I've never worked in any organisation where the financial director was not extremely influential in the running of the business - far more than just a bean-counter, in other words; second, another poster mentioned that the FD is often the first to go when a business hits the skids - again, this is something I've seen on a few occasions. My guess on this is that Jones has never had (and maybe has never sought) the level of influence FDs normally wield, and has effectively been a bean-counter and little more; thus, he's been safe in his position, partly because he's never been perceived as a threat.

Straight account and free of spin - thanks for that Weston, much appreciated.

Thanks. It seemed important to establish that.

But was that before or after Lowe came along?

Er, I think you've got a player too many there - John, Euell, Wotton, Schneiderlin, Gillett, DMG and Lallana makes seven.

I guess it's a question of who's willing to buy whom - and pay their wages after they've bought them. I could see Euell appealing to certain clubs, but if they don't want to match his current salary then he's not going anywhere.

The sound of one hand clapping maybe?

Very Mr Micawber, I like that. But there's also the saying that if you owe your bank a few thousand then you have a problem, whereas if you owe them a few million then they have the problem - I think there's a lot of truth in that as well. I'm sure the club has been in discussion with the bank as to how the finances are to be brought under control and so forth; however, if there is movement in the right direction it's hard to see that Barclays would simply allow us to go to the wall, as they'd then only get a small proportion of what they're owed. It's different with Norwich Union as far as I'm aware, as we've kept up to date with the payments on their loan. Your last statement makes a lot of sense.

What we pay will always depend on the loan agreement - in other words, it varies. If a club is keen to get a player out on loan they'll often agree to pay some of his wages. Not sure about getting in young players from Premiership clubs - with our much-vaunted emphasis on youth, I don't think there'd be any point in bringing in young loanees from elsewhere. It would surely make more sense for us to have a few old pros about the place who can give us that extra level of experience when it's needed, though I guess this would only work if we don't have to pay all of their wages.

Are we? It's only the Echo saying that. If I were you I wouldn't take that as fact!

So why do you always present this theory as if it were established fact? To me it seems totally implausible, to put it mildly.

Where does your information come from on all of this then? Is it from within the club, or just from within your own head?

Surely we're missing the real question on this thread - do we want all those poncey, supposedly civilised homo sapiens at football matches? The massed ranks of homo neanderthalis can always be relied upon to produce a superb array of gestures and grunts - who wants supporters whose knuckles don't drag on the ground, eh?

The same applies to many men, I'd say...

Yes, it was a bit rich, that.

Most of the clubs you mention in your first paragraph went into administration before points were deducted for doing so; you can hardly compare their situations then to ours now. Administration, as so many on here keep pointing out, would in no way guarantee that we would be rid of Lowe, Wilde, Crouch, Uncle Tom Cobbley and all. Bates controls Leeds, Mostyn controls Bournemouth. If Lowe wanted to run a post-administration SLH/SFC he'd be in pole position to do so. Don't kid yourself about that.

Report in today's Guardian here - pretty balanced I'd say. Certainly reflects the comments from most on here who were at the game on Saturday. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/aug/18/championship.southampton

There's no suggestion in the first comment that this will always be the case; it's just that Killer had played his first proper competitive game in years at Cardiff, and they wanted to be sure that there was adequate cover for him. Other than that, Poortvliet's being open and honest - I'm not sure I feel totally happy about the Dyer and BWP comments either though. As to Davies, he might have done better to simply say 'no comment', but then that would have been interpreted in any manner of ways. And the system of Poortvliet having little, if any, say in which players are at the club is rather what I'd have expected - and quite possibly pretty much the way in which he himself is used to working. I wouldn't say that this equates to having somebody else actually picking the team, as some have implied.

Seconded - he's a hoot. Mack Rill's definitely got him taped I see...

I think we'll all sleep easier now.

Phoned the ticket office today - I'm away for the next couple of days and will go to the match if I'm back in time on Saturday. They reckoned it'll be possible to get a ticket on the day, so that doesn't suggest they're anywhere near filling the place with advance sales. What's the capacity with the corners closed?

Well, a fair number of posters try to argue sensibly with him, others get riled at what he posts - I'd say either of these counts as taking him seriously, or indeed rising to his bait. Best to take the p1ss out of him or, if you can't do that, ignore him.

Yes, I liked that one as well - a classic among so many from the master himself. But why the hell do so many on here persist in taking Scooby seriously? I really don't get that at all.

Exit, no offence intended here, but can you not spot a troll when one stumbles across your path? Scooby's been posting on here for ages, and all his posts have one single aim - to get a reaction. Using reasoned argument with him is truly pointless - he'll respond with a glib one-liner which answers nothing, or simply not respond at all.