pedg

Well to me having appointed Sturrock (which I think you agreed did not appear to be a reckless decision) they were caught between the devil and the deep blue see when it did not work out. I would suspect that anyone off the likely results, get rid of sturrock, get rid of the players opposing him, keep them all on and home it did not go completely pear shaped, would be catagorised at reckless by you. But I forget they are supposed to have employed a time machine and realised earlier than they actually did that it was not going to work out. Wow, life not being perfect, who would have thought it!! I know you did not agree with Wigleys appointment, heaven knows you appear to repeat it in every other post. But as I said at the time it happened there was not a branch of 'worldclassmanagers-r-us' open and his appointment has to be taken in the context of both who was available and who of those would want to come to saints. Did you think the appointment of redknapp was a reckless one by the way?

Were Sturrock and Redknapp reckless bets? Did you come onto the forum and say so or is it just that it looks like it now in retrospect? Wigley was a 'risky' bet but has to be taken in the context who was sensibly available at the time to take over.

as I say its all IMO and I can't see how anyone would invest 'significant' money into the club and then install a manager with no experience and with the reputation of putting more people to sleep than reading the phone directory. It all comes down to how much money would be available to spend and would that money then be a debt the club would have to carry. If its say 10 million can you guarentee promotion on that and what happens if we don't get promoted.

Well that would be a first for you:rolleyes: The other thing about NP that I was going to add but thought I might never finish if I did was that when he was appointed most of the people here were somewhat sceptical and this was at the time that Lowe and Wilde were, one assumes, putting their plan together. Just because we did end up scraping our way through was obviously not enough for Wilde and Lowe to rework their plan. Also its likely they had given their word to JP that he would be in charge and did not want to go back on it unless absolutely necessary. I keep putting 'APPEARS' in these statements but apparently that never gets read. I do not think it is an outlandish statement to say that things, from what we can see so far, APPEAR to be going quite well. Who know how long they put off their bid before launching it. Anyway the main blame for how drawn out that because was down to those that held up the hope of a take over and crouch for then holding on to that hope for as long as possible if a fruitless attempt to keep them out. Agreed. I try to only judge things on what I know. That's because the current system APPEARS to be working but IMO shearer as a manager and back to the 'old school' will be a disaster IMO. Should I go against what I think and assume both will be equally good or should I state my OPINION on what I think of them from what I have heard?

Twisty wording man returns I see... Who is to say anything about the future with any certainty? I was trying to point out that, as far as I can tell, they are trying to clear up the mess to which they have both contributed to in the past. I can't say they will be able to clear up the mess in the same way I can't say that a consortium gathering finances from under stones the world over will be a success. No one can because, without the aid of the time travel machine, we can't tell. BUT just because we can't tell you can't start moaning at them about things they hav'nt done yet..

So what if they are clearing up their own mess? Is there something wrong with that? Would you rather they were making the mess worse?

I said it appears to be working. Obviously we will not know for sure when the results, both football and financial start appearing but you can't ignore the fact that all the signs point towards a brighter future than appeared possible at the end of last season.

There are obviously two parts to maintaining the club on a self sustaining basis. Ongoing regular income, ticket sales, tv money, etc and one off player sales income. As long as the team perform as well in the league as they have preseason then we may have to sell in the transfer windows to pay off any short fall from the regular income. If we can get this working right and if people can accept that we have to sell on a regular basis to survive then I see no reason why the two forms of income should not be enough to balance the books. Especially if we continue to cut down the loses without player sales to a manageable level. Yes it relies on the team doing well but that applies to the survival of just about every other club in the country outside a handful in the premiership.

To me it looks like Wilde and Lowe had decided that the only way they could steady the ship was to concentrate on youth and to that end had lined up JP ready for when they took over. NP obviously had an ability to wrestle performances from the journeyman pro's that were the first team at the time but I don't think his management style would have worked as well with the youths. Lowe and Wilde had a plan and they stuck to that plan and so far it appears to be working. If a consortium do come on with some money I hope for the sake of the club that they have a suitable plan and can hit the ground running as well as Lowe and Wilde did. To me getting shearer in as manager and punting up a few million for another batch of journeyman pros is not a suitable plan (if that's what their plan is). As to the first question I think most people can tell the difference between changing manager just after the end of the season compared to either just before or at the start of a season (and it was not a few weeks back it was a few months back now).

I was trying to make the point that we are not the hopeless case obviously doomed to crash and burn as those who appear to want to accelerate that situation would like to believe. As to the last point as I said it is telling that having been in a bid situation for so long we came out of it only after Lowe and Wilde had talked to the money men so they appear to think that the club being run as it is now is a better option for them than what ever the offer from the mystical consortium had put forward otherwise one assumes they would have insisted negotiations continue and we would not have left the bid situation.

Need to correct the obvious spelling mistake first... oops.

Looking to administration to solve our problems is like looking to use a revolver to solve a headache.

There appears again to be this misinterpretation of what the share price means. What it means is that you can on the open market go and buy a limited number of shares at that value. If you want to buy any of the large blocks of share you have to deal directly with the seller and in those cases the current share price is of far less relevance, especially if your aim is to take over as there is always a premiium to be paid in these cases. See how the share price went when the PA rumour came out because people thought that an offer would have to be made at significantly more than the initial share price. If Fulmerrington come out the woodwork and say 'we are going to buy all the shares' the share price today will be of no relevance.

No its just I have not got time to go through it at the moment as I am too busy. To be honest his statement did not really tell us much new, but did anyone expect anything different. It mainly appeared to point out the obvious. e.g. We could go into admin and cease to exist, to those who appear to think we can go into admin and be back in the premiership in within a couple of years smelling of roses.

Oooo, scooby has found 10 dollars on the street and has managed to become a full member. up bright and early I see as it must be about 8am in Washington.

unsustainable at the current level. You don't appear to get the concept that by cutting costs and the over paid players that we are reducing these losses. If the bank, who have, I suspect, a better handle on all the figures that you have, have given us the all clear to continue they have accepted Lowe and Wildes plan and do not then appear to agree with your statement.

Thank goodness you are limited to 3 trolling messages a day.

What a load of bullocks. The current expenditure is being reduced and Lowe and Wilde have obviously convinced Barcleys that we can get to the point where we can live within out means. On top of this you have to remember that the formal exit from the bid situation was after Wilde/Lowe had talked to Barclays etc and so its likely they were less that impressed in what was on offer from the consortium and how long it was taking them to get the money together (cheque is in the post honest!). I would suggest to you that the real scenario is that the few people boycotting will not hasten in anyway the depature of lowe and are only hurting the club with their pig headed inability to change their mindsets.

A more obvious analogy is if you ask people if they want to do to the dentists most will say no. Ask the same people if they accept going to the dentist will help with their painful decay and most will say yes.

I think we are back to the old chestnut of want vs accept. I want to win the lottery. But I accept that I am probably not going to and live my life accordingly. Most people do not want Lowe at the club but they have come to accept that he is there at the moment.

If the teams starts playing well then 99% of those people will probably come back. So it may end up a club divided but with a ratio of 99 to 1 not down the middle as you appear to believe.

Sorry I was going to reply but realised that your post was just a collection of cliches and waffle.

I think you read them as waffle because that is what you want to believe they contain. Compared to the statements by Crouch they are relative mine of information.

So ignore the board and go to home matches and support the team then? Or do you think that all the money you pay goes straight into Lowe's wallet and the players wages appear out of thin air??

I am still missing the use of the word only. If I say someone likes a drink it does not mean they spend all day drinking because that is the only thing they do. I am sure those that have stayed away provided valuable support to the team when they did attend but if it does not mean you have to mention that every time you discuss the situation. Your extrapolation of what was written to 'All the club wants is you money' is just that, baseless extrapolation so you could have something to be indignant about.