The Kraken

The problem with your post, Wes, is that you seem to want to only see it in black and white. Anyone who suggests Lowe was great for the club is barking mad. But by the same token, anyone who can't recognise that he did do a number of things that benefitted the club greatly, well they're equally as blinkered IMO. Lowe made many mistakes, some of them very costly, and he was exceptionally well financially rewarded from his time with us. But the fact remains that he did do a number of things which still benefit the club to this very day. So I'm able to view his tenure with a fair degree of balance, and treat the upside of it with the downside.

Was Pearson all that great with us, though? Don't get me wrong, I've got nothing but fondness for the guy, and the club was a bit of a basket case during his time with us. But he brought in a few high earners on loan to bail us out and we still needed a last day hurrah to stay in the division. I think he did ok for us and wouldn't judge him solely on his time with Saints, but he was a relatively new and untested manager at the time and didn't do a huge amount with us to boost his CV.

I'm genuinely intrigued what you mean by this?

Jokes are always better when you have to explain them. Or something.

If you want to get people to admit to reality, this isn't the forum for it. The likes of some (Colin exudes the traits but poor old St Charlie represents those who are hit hardest by it) seem convinced we were on an unstoppable charge towards the Champions League and only the departure of Cortese has cost us that. The failure to admit that bad old Rupes did better than that is swept under the Swiss rug.

This. Lowe was a complete c*ckle but he achieved an awful lot, including a Premier League finish that Cortese wasn't looking likely to surpass. It seems fashionable on here to decry that, but thems the facts.

George's insistence that a company in administration cannot trade in debt is a new blown adventure into utter stupidity, even for him. And that's saying something.

Saint George and Old Nick yet again proving they know nothing about anything, as usual.

That's not what I said though, was it? I said within a few days of the admin it was reported that there were at least half a dozen expressions of interest. Fry went on to confirm later that there were many more than that, some suitable some not. And as I also said, with the Liebherr bid still on the table as the best potential of any, why the need to redo the whole vetting process, that part was already done and the Liebherrs were in the front seat. anyway this has been lovely but I'm off out.

What gets me about MLT (and I have nothing but respect for the guy) is his failure to admit any culpability in his role. Even in his book he phrases it as something like "I was involved with a bid to take over the club, but in the end just couldn't quite make it over the line". That bid was a farce from start to finish especially given what else was on the table.

Yes, that certainly backs up your original assertion that there was no other interest, doesn't it? Making it up as you go along.

I've already shown you Fry's statement that there were three serious bidders AFTER Pinnacle pulled out. But still you offer nothing of any note to refute that. Nothing at all. Making it up as you go along.

I don't disagree with that in the slightest. Its why Leon Crouch got rinsed for an exclusivity fee to prop up a bunch of chancers who clearly never had the wherewithall to takeover. Its also the same reason why Leon et al, including derry, got taken in by yet more spin convincing them that liquidation was the only viable option. It clearly wasn't, as countless other clubs in administration down the years have shown us. The Liebherr bid was there all along as a safety net for Mark Fry. There were also other serious bids throughout the whole process. How Pinnacle got their foot in the door is a remarkable mystery. But the point remain. Clubs like Saints simply do not go out of business due to such a relatively minimal debt. It hasn't happened before, it wouldn't have happened with us. Something needed to happen of course, and that something happened to be the Liebherr bid. But you will simply never convince me that liquidation would have happened prior to any significant asset stripping and long payment deferral had been introduced, or other emergency measures taken to bring in cash to pay the bills. we hadn't even started selling season tickets to bring in funds; other clubs in the past have done that to get by.

And the point you're missing is that there was money available from more than one source. It's not irrelevant, it is fact. Fry did a poor job in leading us so far along that road, but there were still options before liquidation, its clear to see. There were still players who were sellable assets. There were other assets that could have been sold off quickly. Most of the playing staff could have been cleared out for a pittance if needs be to reduce the wage bill.. Wage deferrals could have been introduced. All sorts of other sources of immediate income and recovery sought, as has been done at other clubs up and down the land before liquidation strikes home. Clubs of our size simply don't go into liquidation for that type of money. Especially so since there was evidence that we'd had actually clawed back the debt in the past year. It simply doesn't happen. As CBF says, that boardroom heard the same doom and gloom predictions from an administrator that is trotted out in every single administration. And as Mark Fry said, there were other parties to the Liebherr's at the time. The Liebherr's were clearly just the standout candidate. That Mark Fry didn't originally realise that is the utter tragedy in the whole sorry saga.

Jesus Christ. They just don't want to learn a thing about their previous indiscretions. Utterly unbelievable.

Again, at odds with what the administrator said at the time, and in an interview with the Echo afterwards. Q. How many parties did you believe could seriously enter into an exclusivity period? MF: There was about three at that time. Q. How many serious parties were left after Pinnacle failed? MF: There were three parties at that time and we were in serious discussion with two of them, but the Swiss were the ones that were ahead.

Where are you getting this from? Seriously? Is it personal opinion? Something you know? From Mark Fry's own words: [Fry declined to extend Pinnacle's period of exclusivity, allowing other suitors to come forward.] "There are two other parties that have expressed an interest in the purchase of the club and I have spent last week in discussions with those parties. "On Thursday I met with the representatives of a bid that is coming from abroad and who have the funds available to complete a takeover. "I am expecting to hear back from them early next week as to whether they would like to push ahead and complete the purchase of the club. "There will not be any further "exclusivity period" available to potential purchasers due to the tight deadlines we are working to. "If towards the end of next week we are in a situation where no bids are forthcoming, I will meet with the directors to discuss options." Again, you seem to only be using assumptions to baseline your opinions and bypassing the facts. "Perhaps". And no-one has said we were never in any danger, simply that it is very unlikely we would have gone out of business. I'm not even sure if fry himself made the statement that club would be wound up, though it was certainly attributed to him. As above his line was "If towards the end of next week we are in a situation where no bids are forthcoming, I will meet with the directors to discuss options."

"Continued to flog a dead horse"? Pinnacle paid for a period of exclusivity. They got that, it was for a fixed term, when that term ended and they hadn't completed the bid moved on to someone else. Are you sure you know what actually happened here? Your opinions on this matter seem either completely contradictory to the facts or entirely based in assumption.

Right. Why did Mark Fry come out with this too then? "It has previously been stated that the Administrators were not prepared to extend the period of exclusivity that had been granted to the Pinnacle Group and that had expired on 19 June 2009." "Immediately following the expiry of the exclusivity period, the Administrators re-engaged in discussions with other parties that had previously expressed serious interest. We remain hopeful that a sale of the Football Club will be completed within a very short period of time." But no, you're probably right and Fry was lying. There was no-one else interested in buying the club. No-one.

Then you clearly have a poor memory. It was revealed in early April that there were half a dozen parties that had put forward expressions of interest. This was reported in the Times, amongst others. To suggest there were no other interested parties is more than slightly dumb. In addition, after the Pinnacle bid fizzled out; "Salvation for a club that played in the Premier League as recently as 2005 is now likely to come from overseas. Fry has hinted that the business could be wound up as early as the end of this week if a buyer cannot be found, but two consortiums from abroad are said to remain interested, and Fry said today that he remains hopeful that a sale "will be completed within a very short period of time."

Fair enough; I'd understood that the sale of Surman, Dyer and McGoldrick (plus Crouch's generosity) had meant that there wasn't any significant delay, though. That and the fans dipping into their own pockets for the numerous bucket collections, of course.

Quite right. The Liebherr bid was there to take over because that's where Mark Fry had positioned them. There had already been a long vetting process of many interested parties; we all know it is madness that the Pinnacle bid came out on top, but there were other bids in behind that. The Liebherr bid was the first one up, and therefore Fry didn't have to search anywhere else for a lifeline, it was right there. Add to the fact that we had already sold a few players to keep the accounts topped up yet still had saleable assets such as Lallana and Schneiderlin on the books. There may have been talk of needing a sale to go through extra quick after all of Fry's catastrophic efforts, no doubt about that, but liquidation was never a realistic proposition, there were just far too many assets and too much public interest for it to have happened. The players were still getting fully paid, there were no wage deferrals, no companies losing millions of unpaid sums. Those lot down the road show just how far into the mire you can go without a football club of any notable size folding.

Depends how much they're smoking. If its 20 a day then its a clear problem. If its 1 or 2 a day then its a negligible problem.

I think that's the point, isn't it? English players are only good enough to make up a very small percentage of the best teams. If the top teams played 6-7 Englishmen in their sides, they simply wouldn't be the top teams any more.

Agreed, I'm not sure if Smalling will make the squad just going as a centre back. Surely the only reason he's been so close to the team is his adaptability at playing right back (and the fact that we're rather bereft of decent options at centre back). Sadly for England, Smalling is nowhere near a proficient international standard playing in either position, he's consistently shown that yet still gets picked. Neither is Phil Jones, though I do think he could develop into a decent centre back if he is given time. Unfortunately, I don't see Clyne getting any sort of opportunity to get on the plane. Especially if he can't force his way in front of Chambers at club level over the second half of the season.