Depressed of Shirley

Had a great belly-laugh reading this in The News just now.

 

 

These delusional idiots who call themselves Journalists, are obviously too young, or couldn't be arsed to do their research, or else they would have known that there are probably two major FA Cup upsets that rank as greater than theirs, had they beat Chelski. These are Sunderland against Leeds, (having also defeated Man City and Arsenal on the way) and Southampton against Manchester United. Many would say that Wimbledon's victory against Liverpool rates right up there, but Wimbledon were only a few places below Liverpool in the top flight when they did it, whereas both Sunderland and us we in the second division at the time.

 

Although the Skates might have been at the opposite end of the table to Chelski, IMO the gap was wider between Sunderland and Revie's Leeds and us and Docherty's United, as both Sunderland and us were second division teams. And even in relative terms, allowing for inflation, the Skates team has to have been far costlier than the one that we had when we beat United.

Both us and Sunderland were 6th in Div 2, and both Leeds and Man U were 3rd in Div 1 at the time of the final. As the First Div had 22 teams in it, the gap in both '73 and '76 was 25 places.

The Cheats were only 19 places below Chelsea on Sat.

+1, couldn't agree more.

It's got nothing to do with the visiting teams, the reason more people are watching Saints is that it is worth watching after a few seasons of total rubbish.

wrong.

 

Carlisle put tickets on sale they were available on the phone, online, or in person at the ticket office.

Tickets purchased over the counter at the ticket office have no booking fee, info passed to me by a carlisle contact who had just been down there to buy them last week

I think this is the same at St. Mary's, i.e. book in person at the ground, no booking fee. The booking charge is standard for Wembley games, concerts etc, and I would guess this comes from Wembley itself.

And now, the end is near............

My son went to the game last night and he was convinced that Holt was yellow carded twice,

So was I.

WBA away in the 76 cup run. Mini bus from The Bitterne Park Hotel.

Sunderland in either 81/82, not sure which. Third game of the season, and they had won their first two. Roker Park was full, and the noise incredible.

We won 2-1.

Compare the game before Lowe which was during the infancy of the Premiership and Sky and compare it post Lowe. There has been such a sea change during that period that you can't compare but if you do 13th as an average top flight position with very little money or the resources to compete with the big guns was fantastic.

 

In fact comparing achievement vs revenue/resources, what we achieved as a club up to our cup final appearance in 2003 against a team where the value of their star striker could have bought our squad was awesome and the equal and more IMO of anything McMenemy achieved and perhaps some would argue should have achieved far more. We build him up to such great heights and such a sage but in this day and age would he have lasted so long with his managerial track record? An FA Cup win and a one off runners up spot which now is beyond the ability of all but 5 maybe 6 clubs at most even considering the Chelsea ban on transfers. He couldn't achieve the runners up spot now, no manager could at Saints and one knockout trophy today is nothing compared to boring mid table Premiership as infamously the Charlton fans are finding out to their costs after dumping Curbishley. The competition for mid table obscurity in the top flight is intense because of the revenues and need to meet player greed and the influx of foreign investment and the rise of the Champions league all show that we had some spectacular achievements in our early years at SMS.

 

Lowe took us down but player and fan greed/power didn't help and eventually as for all clubs our size all those near misses were eventually going to hit the target so we would have gone eventually without massive investment or an acceptance of relative mediocrity and survival as the objective and which Charlton painfully demonstrated to themselves is not an easy thing to do in football.

 

Are you saying that minus Lowe and with McMenemy at the helm in some capacity we could have once again finished second in the top flight in the past ten years? In any event in terms of achievement I will take an average position of 13th in the Premier league the the average of 12th before Lowe simply because the achievement bar so was placed somewhere in the stratosphere in the late 90's. So thanks for proving my argument with those stats and in the case one place up does not make all the difference in proving life before Lowe was any better.

 

Lowe even made the right call that prudence was best after relegation but he had a manager who can't manage these days unless he can spend fortunes and a major shareholder revolt backed by a mob rule of fans unable to look dispassionately at the reality of the situation. Lowe resided over one almost inevitable relegation but the second was determined and guaranteed when Lowe's war chest was emptied in a desperate attempt to buy promotion via the play offs and the rest is history.

 

Now what was your point I can't remember after all that.

It seems to me that where you stand on this issue depends on your age, and the Saints games you actually went to.

For me it is quite simple. In 1976 I saw the greatest moment in the clubs history, and in 1983/84 the greatest season. The one constant from both of these was Lawrie (and Nick Holmes) . Having attended 40 games in 1983/84, I can assure those of you not old enough to have been there, that we were the second best team in England for a whole season. We were undone by injuries to Steve Williams in April, and the fact that Frank Worthington couldn't shoot. In fact without the injury to Williams, we may well have won both the league and cup in that season.

Now I agree that you cannot comapre the post Sky era with what went before in terms of money, but to acheive what we did in 83/84, still required a very good manager. I doubt that anyone that Lowe employed could have matched what Lawrie acheived in 83/84.

However, for me the debate is whether, as a football fan, you aspire to winning things, or being financially sound as a club, happy to finish 12th. In that respect give me Lawrie's view of the football world than Lowe's any time.

I don't believe that Lowe was all bad for the club, but his spiteful actions last summer ensured we would be where we are now. For that reason, I would argue that Lowe lost any previous respect he may have earned, and we are far better off that he's no longer anywhere near the club.

To be fair everyones portfolios have taken a dive recently - check out your latest pension plan statement....

But the point with Rupert is he buys or joins an organisation at the wrong time, and leads them downhill faster than Franz Klammer. One or two **** ups in the current environment you can excuse, but with RL it is everything he touches.

Seeing as the only thing going for him is the perception he is a good businessman, the facts show he isn't really any good at all. If he comes anywhere near my firm with a brilliant business plan, and a scheme for world domination, I will prepare for administration immediately.

Rupert Lowe super businessman strikes again, another £400,000 lost.

http://www.citywire.co.uk/adviser/-/news/other/content.aspx?ID=340848&re=5518&ea=164555

I am now going on Saturday, firstmatch since Reading.

I think that today was the very last straw for me with this club. I left the game on Saturday unsure about whether to ever return, and today's shambles has pushed me over the edge.

To start an AGM by reading an anonymous letter that he had probably written himself was all part of Lowe's strategy to let the meeting descend into farce. Once he had done so, he then smirked as insults were hurled at him, failed to answer most questions, kept repeating that people were entitled to their opinion, and introduced Leon Crouch by saying "lets get Leons point out of the way."

The man is clearly mad, and I am more sure than ever that we will be never rid of his influence.

At the end of the day, he has won with me. I don't want anything to do with the club whilst it is so divided, and with so little chance of recovering. 40 years of great memories, days out, great friends, and a sense that Southampton Football Club was something to be proud of. I don't expect to be arguing at games with other Saints fans, and even less so at the AGM.

Not any more. Rupert Lowe and the other clowns have shown that they have no feeling for the clubs past, nor its future. He is just trying to get back at everyone over his treatment in 2006, and he is not having a penny more out of me to pay for or justify it.

The club is in its death throes, and to be honest, I'm not sure I really care anymore.

Also NickH, he did read the "letter" at the very start of the meeting, no one had asked him a question, or even thrown coins or abuse at hikm before he read it. He did it to provoke, and it worked.

Nick, you are such a pompous oaf it's untrue. It's a football messageboard, not a £10,000 a year exclusive gentleman's club FFS. If I'd come on this forum spouting abuse I could maybe understand your post but seeing as all I've done is post a couple of times in a completely serious, logical and factual manner I fail to see quite why you're getting so het up about it. Just what have I posted on this forum that's an attempt to wind anyone up? Grow up.

 

 

 

He's already satisfied the Premier League over the comments supposedly made by his father in Israel's version of The Sun I think you'll find. As for whether he's a white knight, the answer is and has always been no. he bought Pompey to make money, initially from property development. As that's no longer possible, he's looking to sell. And as he's looking to make money I can see no reason why, even if he's already made a profit, that he would just walk away when he could make even more money by selling the club to a new owner - can you?

 

I'm also interested to note that no-one has been able to refute pretty much anything I've written on here today. Says a lot really

My point about the fit and proper persons test is not that the PL would object, cos they would welcome Pol Pot, Stalin and Hitler if they backed the 39th game proposal, its that if there has been any lying over ownership, it won't be a slap on the wrists.

Nobody outside the PL chairmen, Richard Scudamore and Poopey supporters believes that Daddy has nothing to do with the club. It will finally come out, probably in Israel, but hopefully when Daddy is charged with gun running, junior will walk away, and the club will be left with the debts.

I also don't think that anybody believes that the debts are less than £30m, secured on assets that apart from the players are virtually worthless. In the current transfer market, you need to hope that either Chelski or Man City want to buy your players, as noone else will be buying at ful price for some time to come.

Then again, you could have our t**t of a Chairman, and you would need to be really worried.

I do love the way Saints fans fixate on a couple of older players that Pompey have like Campbell having no sell on value, especially when your forum is full of people crying out for you to buy a couple of experienced defenders. Of course, we only have players with no sell on value don't we? We'd never make profit now if we sold Diarra. Or Kranjkar. Or Defoe. Or Johnson. It's called building a balanced team. Frankly, something your lot would have done well to look at what Redknapp has done and try and emulate.

But he could have made a profit already. Say he took out loans on the back of the club, and then pocketed the cash, it would look like a great way of making money from an asset. Of course, this kind of financial trickery could never happen in real life, because if there is one group of people everyone can trust it is Russian businessmen, and their immediate family. Especially as it all appears to be in Trust, and nobody knows who ultimately owns it.

The problem for you is that noone knows whether he is a white knight with a love for a crappy football team, or a man who knows how to milk every penny out of a number of gulible people.

Also, if it is his Dad who is behind all this, you are likely to get a hefty points deduction, as at the last count he hs lied to the Premier League three times over the ownership.

LOL at BIG DAZZA

 

1. Pompey are vulnerable because of the credit crunch but no more than most Prem clubs and less than a lot of them. A list in the Sunday Times showed that Pompey don't even make the top 10 of clubs with debts in the Premiership. Even clubs like Boro have more debt than us. As for our empire being built on borrowed money, are you really naive enough to beliive that the other clubs don't borrow from the banks to buy players etc? Are you so naive that you believe that the billionaires who own the clubs pay for these players with their own cash? PMSL. If that was the case how would Chelsea have racked up debts of over £500m?

 

2. You think our "proper history" is "laughable"? I'd call two league titles and two FA Cup wins a history, wouldn't you? Most of them a long time ago but a history nonetheless. Remind me of Saints history Dazza?

 

3. Thanks for confirming that The Dell with it's capacity lower than Fratton's wasn't always sold out (The Dell was damn nearly full all the time). Since promotion to the Prem Fratton has averaged 96% sell outs. I'd say that was damn nearly full all the time, would you disagree?

 

4. Spending 90% of our turnover on wages is clearly unsustainable, which is why we need a bigger ground. However, looking at a list last week we are far from the only Prem club with figures like these and even Villa spend 85% on wages and Liverpool about 80% (!). But your ridiculous, childish statement that Gaydamak might "scoot off" is so laughable it's untrue. Do you really think that a man who clearly bought Pompey to make money would walk away with nothing when he could sell the club very easily to any number of foreign investors who would be keen to buy a Premiership club relatively cheaply? Why would he do that Dazza? It's just extremely wishful thinking on your part.

Ther are several points in this reply that need making. Both Saints and Poopey are similar in terms of crowds. If you build a new stadium of 30-35k you will fill it in the prem, but not in the Championship.

There are other premier league teams with similar ridiculous wages, but no-one is sugesting that you could be the only club to see it all disintergrate.

The main point is that your owner has been borrowing money against the security of the club, and if he leaves, it is the club that needs to pay it back. This makes a further takeover less likely as whoever takes over needs to repay/guarantee the debts.

If he clears off, having mortgaged everything that moves, saggy face will be right behind him, and the whole thing will collapse. The loan taken out last January needs to be repaid, and the balance of some of the transfer fees are also due soon.

Still, it could be worse for you, after all, Sol Campbell must have a massive sell on value.