stevegrant

What strange timing. Not sure whether I'm disappointed, relieved, happy, indifferent or what, to be honest.

Yes please. Feel free to ask the usual RVT lot as well - the more the merrier.

By all accounts, Bullard's not been anywhere near as good this season as he was last season, so he might not be missed at all, particularly as he was after £50k a week on a 4-year contract! Hull have got to be a bit careful, they're not safe from relegation yet, despite their brilliant start to the season, and they've now committed themselves to £2.5m every year for the next 4 years. £15m total outlay for someone like Bullard is madness.

Preston are, once again, bringing a team down for a game on 21st February. Pitch is booked at Fleming Park, 10.30am kick-off. Who's available?

Good luck with that one I should probably add that I think something like this that brings shareholders together - as realistically they're the ones who will be able to effect change infinitely quicker than "ordinary" fans - is a good thing, so long as it's organised and structured correctly.

Have you asked them? For all you (and I, as I certainly haven't a clue) know, they might be organising something right now. Just out of interest, who arranged this meeting? I appreciate that time is short, but a day's notice isn't feasible for most people, including me.

Quite. Assuming Stanley's got a satisfactory answer from exit2 above, I'll close this.

Lucky ****s. Not happy.

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha take that Redknapp you ****!

That's certainly the case right now, but two or three years ago it would have been worth a small fortune had there not been a first refusal contract with Bovis on the land.

Not that I can remember. I know that the land gets valued on a reasonably regular basis to ensure its value on the balance sheet is accurate, but I'm not aware of any other plans. I'd have thought even if there were any plans for it, they'd have been shelved due to a complete lack of homebuilding companies willing/able to buy for the sort of money the club would be looking for.

I challenge you to find anyone in the housing industry who has any spare money knocking around for a plot of land without any sort of planning permission I suspect there might also be legal issues regarding sale of assets to directors and/or their associates, particularly if the company is potentially on the verge of insolvency.

I presume you've seen the state of the housing market? Jackson's Farm is worth bugger all right now.

BDO Stoy Hayward are the club's appointed auditors. I'm quite stunned how quickly this rumour has gathered legs - I heard it on the train home at about 6.15, didn't think much of it at that point but spoke to exit2 and he said he'd heard similar, and then not long after this thread appears from a different forum member.

Pahars v Pompey, although my shins caused me great pain for at least a week afterwards due to the ridiculous celebrations... well worth it though.

I do agree, and that's been the main problem ever since it started, insomuch that the Trust has always been reactionary rather than proactive. I don't think that's necessarily anybody's fault (it's pretty difficult to pre-empt events without looking like you're stirring up trouble), and perhaps the fairly rigid constitution is a hindrance at times like this where a fast response from members is probably required in order to issue some sort of statement of immediate policy. That said, they have e-mail addresses of most of their members, so it should be able to be done. Yeah, just spoken to Nick about that. Seems Barclays are being a pain in the arse.

I do agree that there's been a major drop in the patience and tolerance level of supporters up and down the country. It's now pretty common for a new manager to be sacked after 12/13 games because the risk and outcome of not turning around a bad run of form is so stark, and because many fans, players and chairmen have often decided that they simply don't like a manager after 4 or 5 games and make things increasingly difficult for them, until the position becomes untenable. If a team gets relegated and doesn't use the parachute money to attempt to get back up, the club's accused of lacking ambition, rather than looking at the bigger picture and ensuring the club is still in a position to survive over the next few years.

There are various ways and means for members to have their say, all of which are included in the Trust's constitution, which the Trust's board are obliged to follow. Again, see the constitution. There is such a process. When I was involved (more than a year ago now), there was a bank account. I don't see how that's changed, unless you somehow know different...

When we were relegated, it was within the last TV rights deal, which was obviously worth significantly less than the current one. As such, all relegated teams received £6.7m per year for two years, after which they're on their own. The figure is now about £11m per year. The idea of it is a fairly sound one, insomuch that it provides a bit of cash above what they would normally bring in at the lower level so that clubs don't have to immediately slash £25m from their cost base - it can then be done on a more gradual basis, which in theory maintains a little bit more stability. Unfortunately, as once_bitterne rightly points out, most clubs see this as a set of chips to throw on red or black and continue paying Premier League wages for the duration of the parachute payment period, and then worry about cutting costs later. The parachute payments would be a useful bridge for the gaping chasm between the Premier League and the Championship if the clubs receiving them used them in the right way. Very few clubs have done so, in my opinion.

It's all your fault then!

Again, I'm not sitting on the fence on this issue, I've been quite clear with my position. I want the lot of them out, their petty squabbling has been pathetic. Airing dirty laundry in public only serves to highlight that people don't feel they can argue/negotiate in private, so a clean sweep is, in my opinion, required to even begin to sort the mess out. If that includes doing away with Poortvliet, Wotte et al as well, so be it. I won't lose a great deal of sleep over that.

He took over a team in decline (I suspect because the vast majority of the players were Burley players and were disappointed to see him leave, and possibly also something Dodd/Gorman did? The difference between Burley's team and D/G's team was quite frightening), I totally accept that, although I dare say at the time most fans would have been absolutely horrified if they were presented with the scenario that we would go into the final game against a team chasing a play-off place needing to win and rely on other results. To that extent, while I was naturally delighted and relieved at the end of it all that we'd stayed up, on reflection, if someone had suggested when Burley left that our next manager would keep us up on the final day in those circumstances, I'd have been pretty concerned. At that stage, merely "keeping us in the division" wasn't the target. Leon Crouch, as chairman, said that the play-offs were still the target in January. I don't think I "criticised" Pearson, per se, my comments were more a statement that I don't think he was quite the "saviour" that he's been hailed by some. When he was appointed, while it was somewhat out of left-field, I thought it could prove inspired. He said the right things and appeared to have that air of authority about him, for whatever reason (I always put more weight of the blame for results on the players - they're the ones who are out on the pitch, not the manager, chairman, tea lady or whoever) the results, in general, weren't forthcoming. They were good enough in the end, predictably against the better teams in the division, such is the way it seems to have always been with SFC, but bloody hell it was close. Whether he'd have done better with the current crop than Poortvliet, we can only speculate. There is no right answer, despite what many people think. The two situations simply cannot be compared objectively because of the substantially different circumstances. FWIW, I'd have been perfectly happy for Pearson to continue, but it wasn't to be. Incidentally, just think, if Richard Wright hadn't made that point-blank save from Matt Kilgallon with the score at 1-0 against Sheffield United, we'd probably be playing League One football right now, and I can't see that many people would be too complimentary of his time in charge in those circumstances. Such are the fine margins the game deals in these days, one save - which the keeper has admitted he knew very little about - has made a manager a hero in the eyes of many.

I never once suggested it was pre-planned to walk out and to cause a scene, but the fact of the matter is that it happened. Leon lost his rag (which, while understandable, only served to give what little moral high ground there was available to Lowe) and then didn't even vote to show that there is a significant percentage of the shareholders who would have (I presume) voted against the re-election of the board members. I agree that Lowe set the tone and it was poor form to say the least, and the modicum of respect I had for him in terms of at least having the balls to turn up (unlike Wilde) was gone in an instant with that letter. The response to the photo was plain stupid, which I don't think is a criticism he's often labelled with. Why couldn't Crouch and McMenemy keep their composure and act with dignity? That would have ensured that they had all of the moral high ground, and would have gained even more support, and if they'd stayed to vote, they'd have shown the numerical opposition as well. I hold the three of them culpable for the state we're in. Ultimately, I don't see what difference it makes who is more culpable than the other, as they've all had a hand in the situation, and often their culpability has come from their actions when they've NOT been sat in the boardroom. I think that's slightly unfair, mainly on the basis that I, and the vast majority on here, aren't privy to a hell of a lot of the behind-the-scenes goings-on unlike yourself. I only have limited information with which to go on, and I don't make a judgement based upon information that isn't available. We're getting into the "two wrongs don't make a right" situation here, I feel. The only colours I have are red and white, I call it as I see it based on the information I have, as I'm sure you can appreciate. As I said, I'm certainly not on Lowe's side, I'm not on Wilde's side, and I'm not on Crouch's side. I want what's best for SFC, like all of us on here. I suspect we just have different ideas as to how that is achieved, which isn't unhealthy. It would be pretty boring if we all agreed all the time, after all.

I don't know. Preferably someone with no connection whatsoever to the three of them, someone with experience of dealing with getting its fan/customer base back onside after slumping sales and big losses. They don't even need to have any sort of connection with SFC, in fact in terms of having a clear head, it would probably be beneficial if they had no vested interest on that front. That's your opinion, I disagree. Not strictly true. Stadium rights issue. A figure equal to a year's salary or so, but still, factually accurate. And if Crouch is going to put money in, fine. You and others have been telling me and everyone else that he's said he's willing to put money into the club for months, and yet we're still here having the same arguments. If he's going to do it, get on with it, because time's not exactly on our side. If Lowe and/or Wilde are putting some sort of block on it (quite how they'd do that, I've no idea, given that Barclays are in control in reality), go above their heads and ask Barclays to issue an ultimatum to the board. I see absolutely no logical reason why Lowe and/or Wilde would (or could) reject the opportunity for serious investment regardless of who the provider is, unless there are strings attached that make it unworkable. But we don't get told of those strings, do we? Well if you're going to resort to exactly the same, with "I'm losing respect for you because you don't agree with me", I see it as entirely fair game to respond in kind, or do I not have a right of reply anymore?

Show me where I've said that. You're making up an opinion that simply doesn't exist. I don't really know how much more emphatic I can say this: I WANT ALL THREE OF THEM, THAT IS RUPERT LOWE, MICHAEL WILDE AND LEON CROUCH, TO HAVE NO PART IN RUNNING SOUTHAMPTON FOOTBALL CLUB. Has that cleared up the confusion that you seem to be having, or are you going to try and twist those words into something else as well? Why, because I'm not backing your mate? If you're not going to actually listen to the words I'm saying and only take in the words I'm not saying, I couldn't give a stuff. Ah, so it's my fault now? Excellent. I'm well aware of what relegation is likely to bring, and to be honest we'll probably be there even if we stay up at this rate. Once again it comes back to you completely failing to read the ACTUAL words that I've written. Just because I don't think Leon Crouch is the right man to take SFC forward, that doesn't mean I think Rupert Lowe and/or Michael Wilde are. In fact, I've said on this website numerous times (that bit in BIG CAPITAL LETTERS above being another of them) that I believe someone else needs to come in, but it needs to be a complete outsider, in my opinion.