SaintBobby

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.

Davis James Saeijs Perry Surman Euell Wooton Schneiderlin Skacel McLaggon Saganowski Subs: Bialkowski, Liptak, Gillett, Holmes/Smith, McGoldrick

If a source within SLH has leaked share-sensitive information, this is a crime on the scale of tens or hudreds of thousands of pounds. Okay, not rape or murder, but pretty damned serious. I conclude that it is much more likely that it's just yet another fantasist making stuff up, in which case PC Plod - or the SFO - need not be detained. I assume most others agree - as no one (including the original poster) has taken me up on my bet yet.

This rumour is almost certainly untrue. And it may not just be the mods taking an interest in Forrester's IP. If his information is accurate (which it almost certainly isn't), my understanding is that the police will probably want to know the source. It would be insider trading. SLH will need to make an announcement to the stock exchange before it opens if the rumour is true, so we'll know by first thing in the morning. The financial situation is obviously dire, but I'm willing to bet anyone (who PMs me) £100 at evens that we don't go into admin this week.

These sort of hypotheticals are utterly bizarre. It's like saying to a voter who says "I'm going to vote Conservative, I've had enough of Gordon Brown and the Labour Party"...."Ok, but suppose Gordon Brown suddenly came up with £1000bn of free money to divide between the population and it also turned out that David Cameron was a serial rapist".....One imagines the response would be "Ah well, then I might change my mind and vote Labour". If Lowe is suddenly able to produce £35m to reduce the debt, acquire new players etc. then the number of people calling for his head will diminish enormously. No doubt wounds run so deep that a good number of people will continue to feel personal animus towards him, will be sceptical about if the money is real etc. But it would be a game-changing moment. The point is that a good number of people have reached the conclusion that Lowe is supremely unlikely to pull such a rabbit from a hat - or even that he isn't really trying to or capable of doing so. That is NOT a wholly unreasonable or hysterical conclusion based on the evidence presently available. Rupert Lowe's previous behaviour IS relevant. NOT because it can be magically undone, but because it provides an indication of what we might fairly expect him to do - or not do - in future. New facts might emerge at any time to change or alter this analysis. But until they do, the anti-Lowe protestors are wholly justified in sticking to their guns.

What have London Saints done wrong? They're quoting the number stated by the orgainsers and by the cops.....

Err...that was exactly my point..... An example of something else that people will (did) protest about....

Actually I agree. It is a totally redundant argument. The question to the protestors seems to be "Is there anything Saints-related, other than the Chairmanship of Rupert Lowe - perhaps even something totally hypothetical - that you might just possibly ever demonstrate against?" I'd be amazed if the answer isn't a 100% unanimous "yes".

I didn't go on the march as I'm not really sure what positive ideas the protestors have. I think Lowe is now such a divisive and unpopular figure that it is overwhelmingly in the interests of the club (and probably actually in his intersts too) that he should go. But, oddly, that's the easy bit. Without an injection of cash, I'm not sure what happens next. That said, I can conceive of a number of ways in which the protest might act as a constructive step to achieving its aims. It's probably impossible to know whether these have happened or will happen, but you don't need a particualrly agile mind to imagine them: 1. The publicity starts to gain the attention and interest of an alternative buyer. Or encourages an already potentially interested buyer to increase their level of interest. 2. The organisers of the demo now have some form of "supporter database" that can be deployed for future activities. This database probably grows as a consequence of publicity. 3. The financial muscle that is subsequently yielded by this supporters' database makes Lowe's position literally untenable - by e.g. the bank insisting of a change in the board because of the revenue being lost e.g. by a boycott. 4. Lowe and Wilde find the continuing build up of pressure so personally and/or professionally embarrassing that they throw in the towel. To be 100% clear, I'm not saying that any of these things have happened (or that they will). But I do understand the point of the protest and I believe it does help the "Lowe Out" cause. My problem with the "Lowe Out" cause is that I don't think it goes very far to addressing the bigger (more important) systemic problems. But that's probably where I have a difference with some of the demonstrators....Or perhaps where I'm being too "completist" or pedantic. But I do believe the chances of Lowe and Wilde being forced out are measurably increased by these sort of activities and the networks that they involve and create.

Presumably not. The protest was against Lowe - not specifically related to the performances of the team on the pitch. (Although many fans claim that Lowe's stewardship has had a direct and negative impact on the on-field results).

Very extensive match report here: http://www.southampton-mad.co.uk/news/loadnews.asp?cid=TMNW&id=430313 First game I've actually enjoyed for quite some time.