Alain Perrin

How big? I'll put a grand in if there's some guarantee we won't be in the same situation in May.

Whatever Lowe has said has been analysed for every nuance and interpretation. Personally I think the best PR advice he got this season was to keep quiet, both because he can put his foot in in (Klingons etc.) and because there are people who will accentuate the negative, eliminate the positive etc. And if Lowe was in the Echo "rallying the troops", you'd be in the front of the queue with: - what right does he have, he's the reason we're in this situation. - what does he know, he should just shut up and stop interfering. - I hear he's picking the team with Wotte. ..or something similar. He can't win.

I just don't see what difference a mea culpa it will make to our current predicament. For the record this is what he said (various variations of this): "Lowe believes the responsibility for Saints' predicament must be shared by all at the club. He added: 'Everybody who has been involved in the club, whether that's the board, everybody, has to bear a little bit of the blame.'" Personally I think that is true, and I know I am in the minority, but why should one person accept the blame? He hasn't missed two penalties in a game for example.

Apparently there's an article on the FA website saying that if Lowe admits blame we'll get a 10 point bonus. I can understand why you want it so much.

that's the spirit.

I don't know what the figures are, but the interest due over the lifetime of the loan would explain why the headline figure is pretty much the same. Lowe did, I believe, restructure the debt at some point in order to get a better interest rate. Criticise Lowe for plenty of football related decisions, but generally financially he has his head screwed on (not doubting that the football decisions have financial consequences). Ironically the reverse takeover and resulting PLC structure may be what saves us from relegation. Interesting to see what people think then...

Sorry, that's ********. That's what happens when you forget you are on a netbook! He's in the second row, standing behind the woman in the beige coat. the sideboards are the clincher. Do I win a prize.... do "I get my club back"?!?

Far right hand side. Looks like he's walking into the shot. If you look at the sideboards, that's him.

Ummm.... http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/news/leicester benefit game announced.aspx

If true, this shows that the naysayers were wrong and that re-signing Dyer was a very astute business move.

Agree that ST sales are vital, but I'm not sure why the club can't put that money in escrow. Open up an escrow account where the condition of release is the ongoing existence of the football club. Fans 'buy' their season tickets in the usual way, but the funds aren't released until the future of the club is assured. Not sure if it would work given the admin situation, but that would be my first thought.

Forgive me if I am wrong Alpine, but I believe you were among those saying you'd welcome administration as a way of getting rid of Lowe. Administration in the midst of a credit crunch runs the risk of there being no buyer there (i.e. the club ceases to exist). Side effect maybe, but a real one. You're interpreting what FC said to a degree in order to make your point. Clearly no fan, certainly no poster here, wants the club to fold. What would we do with our lunch hours? ps. It helps neither of you to twist each others words to escalate your personal battle. Why don't you both try being as great as me

And therein lies the nub of the problem. Just as there are few people who seem to think the sun shines on Rupert Lowe (Nineteen Canteen springs to mind), there are others who cannot accept he should have any credit for anything (a lot more names in here). Speaking personally, I have found myself leaping to his (RL's) defence in the face of blinkered opposition, not because I necessarily supported him on 100% of issues. I find it difficult to respect anyone who cannot recognise that there are two sides to every decision (for example I don't see many complaining about the corners being shut now we're in admin. Lowe does it and some were treating it like he'd molested their gran). Add to that I have a natural tendency to support the underdog, that's why I've supported Saints since knee high. It's also natural for anyone to embelish their argument to support their point and, if all else fails, I recommend putting FACT! at the end. So there's a rational reason. Alternatively you can accept there are some on this board who have little petty vendettas with each other. It's just a bit sad. FACT! ps. Note the use of past tense. He's no longer with the club.

Funniest thing about that whole affair was when someone suggested he had sex with monkeys (astride gibbons, geddit?) and there was faux indignity from from one or two of the Anyone but Lowe fraternity. How dare you suggest this about him yada yada yada. Quite ridiculous. A piece of comedy gold missed in my opinion. The world's gone mad. The next thing you'll be telling me is you can't send emails about who is ****ging who in the office without getting fired..... oh.

There's enough **** written already...

...

FFS Lowe out!

-2 because someone told me the kickoff was 7.45.... doh!

Jesus. You lot would argue about who has the best pair of socks. There are no facts only opinions, and the polls on here, whether they are used to support a Lowe Out case (I know you've done that Um) or to support administration, are worthless. They are a snapshot of opinion, often taken at times of emotion (post win/loss) with loaded questions. i.e. amusing but statistically irrelevant. Would you: a) Want Saints to go into administration. b) Not want Saints to go into administration (and kill your Gran) The sooner people stop dressing opinions up as facts then the sooner we can rebuild and start supporting Saints again (assuming that's what you want).

I can't believe MLT was only on £4K pw. But I don't begrudge football players being paid big bucks. If Robbie Williams sells out a stadium he gets a big pay day, if 22 players provide the same entertainment then they deserve the equivalent remuneration. Clearly we're more Chaz and Dave at the moment, but give it time.

Daren made a good point on another thread: "Pearson was every inch a Lowe appointment. Young, ambitious, British with a strong working knowledge of youth and how to bring them on with his England under 21 experience." I too find it strange that Lowe didn't continue with him, he had the fans on his side after a great escape - so there must have been another reason. - Ego - the 'Lunatic fringe's' favorite reason. Lowe has had belief in the Ajax model since pre-Burley. - Money - did Pearson really cost more (enough to make a difference)? - Loyalty - Lowe had let Wotte down once before, perhaps he felt guilty about that? - Ability - Under 21 experience has bitten us before - stand up Mr Wigley. - Timing - Lowe was plotting his return and the management structure before Pearson came good/got lucky (depending on your view point). So take your pick. Personally I liked Pearson, was happy for him to stay, but think we'd have struggled anyway. We've missed our big money players this year no doubt (even if they were rubbish last year too!).

Pretty certain players get paid monthly... I'd be surprised if any of the 'give youth a chance' signings are on anything more than £2K a week. In my opinion Fish is promising but too young / inexperienced. Hopefully will be a good player in time, but not this year.

LOL. Perhaps the word extremist was misused - it has the wrong connotations, more accurate to say your views are strong ("I now despise the man") - and it's obvious where Nineteen Canteen stands. I am not trying to gloss over anything, this season is a **** up - and Lowe is very much at fault. He made mistakes, too many and ("it's a results business") deserved to go. I just don't think he is to blame for everything.

No. I think you both sounded a bit silly with your **** waving contest to be honest. I think Nineteen Canteen is a pro-Lowe extremist, just as you are an anti-Lowe extremist. I agree with parts of both of your arguments but think that you are equally blinkered on others. But... I don't feel the need to have DM or Fop like rants because I disagree with someone. Buck / responsibility is not same as blame. If Rupert Lowe started the game of cards, someone played the hand in the middle and he laid them down. Either way it was a busted flush. There are other ways of looking at that of course. Mark Wotte was RL's first choice, way back pre-Burley, perhaps he felt a sense of loyalty to him as he was allegedly left in the lurch before. Perhaps Pearson did cost more. yada yada yada. I'm just making a case that things aren't as black and white as either extreme would like to paint them. Pointless though as nothing will change as a result of it, not results or opinions. We're too late for all of that.

No it wasn't, and sorry if you felt I was patronising. We can always say "we should have bought better players" or "we should have retained a couple of our top earners", but the fact we're in administration suggests we don't have any cash. The players that we did buy were bought on buy now pay laters (like Schiederlin), part exchange for a higher earner like Pulis or loans to fill a gap (Cork, Saejis etc.). I don't know the detail, but I reckon the collective weekly wages of the majority of the players brought in at any one time would pay for one week of John (I think he was on circa 14K per week and I doubt they're on much more than 2K each). Either way though, it is money we don't have.