CanadaSaint

Did he really say that? Unbe-fricking-lievable.

The only direction the "balls" are going in at our club is "up". As in "complete". From start to finish.

I know that - I'm talking about McGoldrick STAYING on when Saga's taken off. Yes, he might have taken a knock. Given the scoring records, it's illogical and can only be explained by something else buddy.

I can't believe the Saga off/McGoldrick on thing. Shocking. Wotte is so much in Lowe's pocket he might as well be his handkerchief.

Stump up what cash, um? Enough to pay off the overdraft and the stadium debt? I don't think that's going to happen, although clearing the overdraft is a possibility. In which case debt holders are going to have a big say in this because they need a business plan (and someone to implement it) that gives them a reasonable expectation of getting their money back. Rupert doesn't exactly have the kind of track record to engender that confidence. He's not just the nightmare scenario for us but (hopefully) the least desirable option for an administrator and the debt holders too. I'd be surprised if this is all down to the administrator. And if it looked like going that way, that would be the time to pull out the real protests.

I see your point but I don't agree with you, WindowCleaner. All these guys have skill to some degree or other, certainly enough to pass the ball around as long as the pass options are there. They haven't been for us because we play too compressed, don't run well enough off the ball, and waste the wing space. This plays right into the hands of the big, physical guys because they're not being pressured to turn, cover a lot of real estate, and keep pace with fast attacks. It also makes our defence more vulnerable to wide counter attacks.

Dinosaurs, indeed, Dave. In the modern game the price of failure is much greater than the rewards of success, so teams play this width-less, soulless crap that isn't a lot of fun to watch. And we're getting older by the day.

I just don't get this. Every time I've seen him he cuts inside and straight into blind alleys. We lose all our shape as players try to get out of his way, he loses the ball, and then we're struggling. He doesn't seem to have the courage to take a full back on down the line for fear of getting kicked. (It's like he went to the Fabrice Fernandes school of wing play!) It may well be down to how he's been encouraged to play, which I think is Derry's point. I think Derry's bang on. And the lack of width exposes players like James because he's got both wide midfielders and overlapping full backs coming at him.

I also remember Fred Kemp being a really good guy. Always willing to chat, keen to buy a round, and happy to hang out with fans. Just "one of the guys" and he never came close to "lording it up". And then he'd run his arse off every game. The Steele, O'Neill, Gabriel, Channon bunch were much the same. Cliff Huxford was a great guy as well - kicked the crap out of everyone on Saturday and went to church on Sunday! He was manager of Basingstoke for a while; he wouldn't just chat with you, he'd remember your name as well. The memory of people like this just makes the current game seem all the more hollow and self centered.

Perhaps Lowe is Barclays man, for whatever reason. They may not be happy with his performance but he's probably poisoned their opinion of Crouch ("look at the money he squandered") and he's the best (and probably only) bet they have right now. Any prospect for a Jackson's Farm deal would probably make him stronger in their eyes. But, as I mentioned in another thread, I'm still wondering how three things fit into all of this: 1) Lowe and Wilde, supposedly at their wits end for keeping the corporation alive, tell Crouch to wrap his 'lifeline' around his own neck and pull. 2) We hang onto players when all the indicators were that we had no choice but to sell them - almost at any price. 3) There are rumbles about at least one loanee coming back - one who could have generated a significant transfer fee income. Surely Barclays would have to be comfortable with the situation (whatever it is) for those things to happen.

You have to wonder whether something is happening. Lowe and Wilde, supposedly at their wits end for keeping the corporation alive, tell Crouch to wrap his 'lifeline' around his own neck and pull. We hang onto players when all the indicators were that we had no choice but to sell them - almost at any price. There are rumbles about at least one loanee coming back - one who could have generated a significant transfer fee income. I'm sick of the false dawns too, but you can't help wondering how all this fits together.

Stanley, I thought the share purchase price for a complete takeover (essentially, the hoovering-up price once a certain level has been reached) was set by company law as the highest price paid during the preceding x weeks (can't remember what "x" is). If so, that conspiracy theory wouldn't work. At least legally.

We've just got points from two games that I very much suspect we'd have lost under JP. We did that by not rolling over when things got tough. Not all good by any means but fight is always a sign of hope.

If they transfer or loan him out after three goals in two games there really will be a riot. Not even Rupert is stupid enough to do that. Oh, wait a minute ...

He, more than most, is a player who will do very well when he leaves us. From what I've seen of him he's quite a thoroughbred but we won't see his best here.

It's not a smiley, it's a sh*t scaredy.

The possession is 34% Saints, 66% Swansea but we've outshot and outscored them. It's going to be a long afternoon. My avatar says it all!

There's a lot of difference between paying someone to act like one of us and promote an agenda for a fee (dishonest infiltration), and a well regarded and regular poster who has a strong relationship with one of the protagonists. Sure, I get a bit frustrated with some of FF's angles but he's doing it because he believes in Crouch (not for money) and he's never, as far as I know, tried to conceal it the link.

It may well be down to what we do, or don't do, in the window. If we can't shed some payroll and ideally get some transfer money in, the noose could tighten quickly.

I hate this constant name changing sh*t. The profile thing should have some kind of genealogy section so we can keep track of the people who need to change their names because they've shot their own credibility in the arse (not just Sundance/Flashman/Fourth Bear/whatever the frick). Hard to do, though, what with changing IPs.

As long as they think they might be there's a chance they'll pay us more than Dyer's worth. How much we get, and by when, is another story. But right now they're tough to bet against with their recent record.

We're in the driver's seat on this because they desperately want Dyer for the Prem push, so hopefully our good negotiating skills will prevail. On second thoughts I see where you're coming from.

Yeah, but that's in a permanent transfer isn't it Nick? How about a loan situation? I'm pretty sure that's legit. So, don't transfer him until after the game.

Slightly OT but it could be a smart move in one instance - does Dyer get to play against us if a formal transfer hasn't gone through?

Stanley, I don't think they have much choice, whether they sympathize or not. They'll move from a "watch and see" brief to a "keep this tightly under control" brief, all because of a nutter. And the news of the threat to Wilde is hardly going to swell the numbers, is it? What a fricking mess.