SaintBobby

God no. 4 at best. That's why I'm treating some of our games as "bonus" games - expect to lose and treat any points as a surprise. Definitely had Ipswich away in this category.

It's at about this stage of the season when I start being a total nerd with spreadsheets and trying to gaze into a crystal ball. Likelihood is that 14 more points will secure survival. My hand-on-heart projections for the remaining games are as follows: BIRMINGHAM AWAY - LOSE DERBY HOME - WIN QPR HOME - DRAW BLACKPOOL AWAY - DRAW CHARLTON HOME - WIN WATFORD AWAY - DRAW WOLVES AWAY - LOSE CRYSTAL PALACE HOME - WIN SHEFF WED AWAY - LOSE BURNLEY HOME - DRAW NOTTM FOREST AWAY - DRAW Total W 3 D 5 L 3 = 14 points Gettin way ahead of myself here - but things might get interesting/weird if we go to the City Ground on the final day of the season with both Saints and Forest needing a point to guarantee safety - or possibly, say, one team needing to win and the other needing only to avoid defeat by a hatful of goals (echoes of Austria v West Germany in the 1982 World Cup, perhaps?)

I still remain bemused by the tendency of some many fans to label so many games "must win" matches. The truth is that the likelihood is that we must win any four or five of our remaining eleven matches. The consequences of our three wins - combined with Forest and Plymouth's irritating back-to-back victories - are that: (a) More teams have been dragged back into the relegation fight. Assuming Charlton are gone, then it looks like any two from Saints, Norwich, Blackpool, Barnsley, Forest, Plymouth and Watford will be joining them in League One hell - with Derby and Palace also potentially in the mix if either goes on a truly terrible run. (b) The points-required-for-safety mark is probably higher than usual - maybe as high as last year. It looks like a "point per game" ratio won't be enough. Best guess would be that a haul of 50 or 51 points will be needed to come 4th from bottom. © Although our goal difference is still the (equal) second worst in the division, it is no longer horrific compared to our fellow strugglers. This means that we might avoid the de facto half point penalty of poor GD as we enter the final stages of the season. Last season this problem meant we had to beat Sheff Utd on the last day rather than just avoid defeat. (d) Although it will be a moving target, best guess is that we need 14 points from our last eleven games to stay up - that's a record of four wins, two draws and five defeats. (e) Bookmakers now make Saints narrow odds-on favourites to avoid the drop - with Norwich, Blackpool and Charlton the odds-on favourites. (f) We're in a rich vein of form at just the right time. Wotte's record as manager so far is a very creditabe (but not dazzling) W 3 D 2 L 2. But it must make a lot of difference that it's the most recent three games that we've won. All in all, after my despair following the Sheff Utd and Bristol City games, I think we have about a 60 - 65% chance of staying up, so the odds on offer of 11/10 represent good value.

Just the bare bones here of an idea... 1. We have about 9,000 season ticket holders. 2. A good number of these people won't renew because of the Lowe-Wilde chairmanships. (group A) 3. A good number of people will renew - despite being strongly opposed to the Lowe-Wilde chairmanships. (group B) 4. Obviously, there are still a good number of people who will renew regardless (or will not renew regardless) of Lowe-Wilde and/or which division we're in. 5. To use financial muscle to remove Lowe-Wilde, we need to unite the people in group A and group B. This would probably amount to - I don't know - 3,000+ season ticket holders? 6. The board are at their weakest - financially - vis-a-vis the fans at the point of season ticket renewal. It's all very well for me to join a demo, or boycott the next home game or whatever - but the truth is that the club got my hard-earned wonga ages ago. They don't directly care if I turn up now or not. 7. The board have a helluva problem in setting terms for season ticket renewal anyway. Even if the board were suddenly taken over by angels, what price should be set, when and why? Slash prices because we'll probably be in League One? Or try and hit loyalists for a cash fix now to fend off financial meltdown? 8. As/when/if the new season ticket prices are set and renewals invited, we should get as many people as possible to renew with a post-dated cheque (dated, say, July 1st 2009) with a covering letter saying that the cheque will be cancelled if Lowe and Wilde are still in charge on June 30th, but will otherwise be honoured. 9. Some respected fan group - e.g. this forum, a Saints trust, the demo organisers or whatever - need to become the proactive "depository" for the names, membership numbers etc of the "protestors". 10. This database of hundreds/thousands of names can then be used (without infringing the data protection rights of the signatories) to generate both (a) media coverage and (b) influence on major SLH shareholders and the financial institutions to which we are in hoc. 11. Lowe and Wilde are forced from office on the basis of crude, but real, cash numbers. 12. Saints begin their assent up the league ladder and win the Champions League in 2014. Ok...#12 is a little optimistic, but maybe #11 is achievable?

Laughable assessment by Wotte. Bristol City were very worthy winners. We might have nicked a point, but it would have been robbery. This was a game we deserved to lose. For the manager to think or say otherwise smacks of delusion.

Thanks, I'll put as much cash on as Corals accept! My predictions for the drop are Saints, Norwich and Barnsley. I think Charlton might get out of it.

Just amazing. These quotes seem basically accurate. The "head coach" really has lost it. We genuinely are at the stage where you might as well let any random poster on here have a go at managing the team for a laugh. Truly, they could do no worse. Pathetic and shameful. I have - reluctantly - reached the conclusion that the whole board and senior staff need to be removed. The basic footballing incompetence is just staggering. Mark Wotte doesn't even deserve to sniff the steam off Saga's p i s s.

Christ...where are these odds quoted? I'm tempted to remortgage my house and put it all on Saints going down. Likelihood is I make £100,000. Alternatively, I'm rendered homeless but ecstatically happy (and surprised)!

I nearly docked him for giving away the penalty. I was disappointed at the level of commitment. But I still stay the best player on the pitch was Rudi. Not the most committed. But still the best.

Full - and very damning - match report here: http://www.southampton-mad.co.uk/news/loadnews.asp?cid=TMNW&id=432599

And - as of 9am on Monday 9th Feb - no media coverage either. If the story doesn't break in the next hour or so on a mainstream outlet, it's almost certainly total rubbish. As no one will take me up on my bet that we aren't about to go into administration, does anyone fancy a wager on this instead? I say the whole thing is nonsense - and that BW-P and DMcG will not be arrested or charged.

What a load of tosh. 1. Portsm@uth's predicament is far worse in financial terms because the losses associated with relegation from the Premier League are so much larger than the losses associated with relegation from the Championship. 2. If I'm right, P*rstm@uth's debt is "worse" than ours, in that it's not just larger, but is also a cash debt. Our debt is primarily tied to the mortgage on St. Mary's, which is an asset (albeit of questionable value if we can't even half fill it). 3. Your skate mate's feeling don't strike me as very rational. Clubs certainly shouldn't change managers in order to try and make fans feel "over the moon". 4. We should be "less worried" about relegation to League One than the skates should be about relegation from the top flight. That doesn't mean we should resign ourselves to it, but it does mean we shouldn't gamble too heavily or take a "do or die" approach. 5. As others have pointed out, chopping and changing managers is rarely a recipe for sucess. Firing a manager after just three games in charge would be insanely rash even by football standards. Adams is the equivalent of Poortvliet - 20+ games in charge and couldn't cut it.

As per my previous bet - which, sadly, no one took me up on - including Forrester who said his info was "absolutely reliable" that we'd be in administration by now, I'm willing to bet £1,000 at evens that we DON'T go into administration on or before 23rd Feb 2009. Just PM me to take me up on the bet.

Relegation now close to certain and entirely deserved.

Good substitution - we must be playing nearly 4-2-4

some hope...utd down to ten men

bugger

seems to be about North East football teams....

Either (A) The rumour is totally false or (B) a serious criminal offence has been committed There are no circumstances in which © it is true and a criminal offence has not been committed. As I indicated, my strong belief is that (A) is true. If, however, (B) turns out to be true, you can expect the legal authorities to take it reasonably seriously - and rightly so.

I have offered the original poster a wager of anything up to £10,000 that his "absolutely reliable" information is wrong. But he has yet to get back to me. Wonder why...

what would it take to be our lowest league attendance for 10, 20, 30, 40 years?

The fact that there were no departures in the transfer window - despite apparently receiving offers for Surman, Lallana and Davis - leads me to believe we are no longer teetering on the brink of financial meltdown. If administration was looming large, we surely would have accepted offers for players, even "undervalued" offers. The bank woudl almost certainly have insisted that we do so. Although attendances have fallen badly this year, our wage bill has been slashed even more dramatically (Safri, Viafara, Rasiak, John, Davies, Lundekvam and numerous others are off the wage bill). Things are obviously precarious still - and relegation would be a massive financial blow. But I don't think we are any longer on the very edge of the financial precipice. As an aside, the poster who started the thread saying an absolutely reliable source has informed him we're going into administration this week, has so far failed to take me up on my £100 bet that we won't. I'm wondering whether the mods should positively encourage those posting rumours to "shout the odds" - although it may fall foul of gambling laws. But it would be a good way of splitting genuine info from fantasy. Someone who says "I've heard X from a very reliable source" should be able to add "so, I'm 90%+ sure it's true and will accept bets at 9-1 from those who think the opposite"

My guess is that the non-sale of players and addition to the playing staff of one (albeit relatively cheap) player, indicates that our financial position is "serious but stable". (isn't that what they usually say about badly injured people who look like they are going to pull through?).

I'm delighted with the lack of departures. I can only assume that the financial situation is nothing like as bad as some people think, or have been led to believe. If we were on the brink of financial meltdown, we'd surely be giving players away (as Leeds effectively did), just to get them off the payroll.

Don't be utterly ridiculous. Posting "I hear that XXX is signing for us from YYY" is clearly not a criminal matter. Releasing specific share-price sensitive information is. If the information turns out to be accurate, his source has committed a serious offence. For this reason, and several others, I take the story to be impausible. If people do really have rumours etc., post away. But most turn out to be worse than random guesses.