Johnny Bognor

These are the attendance figures from the website match reports (Games marked with an 'N' are night games - which historically attract a smaller gate). Cup games are excluded..... PRE CROUCH Palace = 25,054 Stoke = 20,300 Colchester = 18,713 (N) Barnsley = 19,151 West Brom = 21,967 Cardiff = 20,796 Charlton = 23,363 Wolves = 19,856 Blackpool = 21,075 Sheff Wed = 17,981(N) Hull = 18,125 CROUCH'S TENURE Preston = 23,267 Watford = 23,008 S****horpe = 18,146 Norwich = 18,004(N) QPR = 22,505 Plymouth = 17,806(N) Ipswich = 23,299 Leicester = 17,741(N) Coventry = 22,014 Bristol = 22,890 Burnley = 21,762 Sheff Utd = 32,000 OK, here's my take on it: Night games always produce a lower gate, so taking these out reduces the night time effect. The first game of the season is always a spike (after a long summer) as is the last game (for obvious reasons) Pre-Crouch Average = 20,580 Pre-Crouch Average (excluding night games) = 21,076 Pre Couch Average (excluding night games and 1st game) = 20,579 Crouch Average = 21,870 Crouch Average (excluding night games) = 23,210 Crouch Average (excluding night games and last game) = 22,111 Whatever way you look at it, attendances under Crouch were improved - despite the fact that league position in the latter half of the season was worse than the first half. UM PAHARS - you are spot on. The sour grape brigade can twist the facts all they like, but the truth always outs in the end.

I would hope that any prospective buyer will look at the levels of support during Lowe's tenure and recognise that like any other business, customers count and their support cannot be taken for granted. Successful businesses place the customer first by offering real value - unsuccessful ones don't, will fade and disappear. It's as simple as that really (but a bean counter like Lowe would never understand this).

Don't worry, he'll be the one holding a bunch of sour grapes.

Ah, but good things come to those that wait. Anyway, your last line was Brilliant! I bet you drink Carling Black Label!

Ah, but Heineken refreshes the football clubs, that other beers cannot reach.

Not wanting to pee on any fireworks, but how many 'interested' parties are from this forum? Not knocking anyone's efforts on here, I just hope there are 15 interested parties with real cash to spend.

There's nothing like going quietly is there?

Having seen your latest financials, the only clubs you'll be buying is a set of Callaways (to practice your golf swing )

It is thought that the administrators and Barclays, with which the club had exceeded its £4 million overdraft limit, believe that it will be easier to find a buyer for Southampton with the board gone. (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle6018444.ece) If there is anything in this, the bank thought Lowe had no chance of finding a buyer, without which, we would not be able to continue as a going concern.

There were other people there and I understand he prefers blondes (well that's what the missus told me).

So not content with running the club into the ground, he now wants to put off any potential buyer by making us look like a bunch of brainless morons.

No, his mum and dad live in the Witterings (Near Chichester), not far from my parents. I have met Richard on a few occasions as my other half has had 18 years service with Virgin Atlantic - she did spend a week in Neckar island (http://www.neckerisland.com) with Richard (and Ted, his father), so I could always get her to put a word in.

Are you Saint Robbie? Are you Saint Robbie? Are you Saint Robbie in disguise?

Is this you?

This one's better.....

Will the LSE website crash (like SWF) with a high number of people in the SO postcode hitting F5 every few seconds?

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article6018444.ece The Times link has been posted in THE FACTS thread. Is it just me or does this part of the article stick out like a sore thumb? It is thought that the administrators and Barclays, with which the club had exceeded its £4 million overdraft limit, believe that it will be easier to find a buyer for Southampton with the board gone.

The value isn't that much in the scheme of things. I guess it is an investor looking at Lowe's record elsewhere.

Well UP has come on, will GM appear to kiss and make up?

It must be true, Nineteen Canteen and FF are being nice to each other.

So we're as good as down, as it will be hard enough to get mathematically safe as it is. No way would we get 11 points clear. So we're down, starting on minus 10. ****ing Great!

So if this is the case, what is the scenario regarding points reductions? (OK, I'm being a bit lazy, but don't want to dig up the old posts)

You're probably right, and there is little between the two parties. My main point, though, is that many socialist principles were or would have been implemented by Conservatives and so the socialists don't have a monopoly on all things good. ......but a little world war that kills millions of people tends to refocus the mind on what is important. Living in this world of consumerism, falling moral standards and obsession with celebrity, is it no surprise? Perhaps humanity needs a plague, war, famine or natural disaster to re-focus the minds.

I have made a few edits and so you may or may not have avoided my question. So to answer your question, Yes I do. The question is, do you? ...and if you do, does that not make you a traditional Conservative? I will throw that one out to BTF and the other lefties on here....

Badger, here is a little history lesson for you.......... The general election of 1841 was won by the Conservatives with Sir Robert Peel as Prime Minister. Although he had opposed income tax, an empty Exchequer and a growing deficit gave rise to the surprise return of the tax in his 1842 Budget. Peel sought only to tax those with incomes above £150, and he reduced customs duties on 750 articles out of a total number taxed of 1,200. The less wealthy benefited, and trade revived as a consequence. Source: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/history/taxhis2.htm So the concept of taxing the rich to benefit the poor was in fact invented by the Conservatives, some 60 years before the Labour party was even born. Socialists generally forget about this very important fact, so if you believe in the principle (as I do), then you are very much a traditional Conservative. Labour are often credited with the creation of the NHS and the Welfare state, but for socialists out there, I challenge you to read Winston Churchill's 1945 election manifesto - please read the sections on National Insurance, Health and Education. http://www.conservative-party.net/manifestos/1945/1945-conservative-manifesto.shtml If you can't be bothered to read it, here are the key points: Health The health services of the country will be made available to all citizens. Everyone will contribute to the cost, and no one will be denied the attention, the treatment or the appliances he requires because he cannot afford them. We propose to create a comprehensive health service covering the whole range of medical treatment from the general practitioner to the specialist, and from the hospital to convalescence and rehabilitation; and to introduce legislation for this purpose in the new Parliament. Education (note the Education bill hit the statute books in 1944) The Education Act set forth in the "Four Years' Plan" has already been piloted through Parliament by Mr. Butler. Our task in the coming years will be to remodel our educational system according to the new law, and a vigorous drive will be needed to supply the teachers and the buildings necessary. National Insurance National well-being is founded on good employment, good housing and good health. But there always remain those personal hazards of fortune, such as illness, accident or toss of a job, or industrial injury, which may leave the individual and his family unexpectedly in distress. In addition, old age, death and child-birth throw heavy burdens upon the family income. One of our most important tasks will be to pass into law and bring into action as soon as we can a nation-wide and compulsory scheme of National Insurance based on the plan announced by the Government of all Parties in 1944. So whilst Labour have taken credit for the implementation for the Welfare State, the Tories were planning to do it anyway. So just because you are a Tory, it doesn't man that you don't care about the less well off. The Welfare State is as much a part of Conservative policy as much as Labour policy - therefore in principle there are no differences. The main issue or divide relates to how it should be funded and how far it goes. So to answer your question, Yes I do. The question is, do you? ...and if you do, does that not make you a traditional Conservative?