Roman

itk, osm?

The most amazing thing about this whole affair is that Wilde has not once thought it necessary to explain his actions - at least to the people whose support he so assiduously courted before he took over and presided over the boardroom chaos and drift that blew the best chance we had to get 're-promoted' (as his new soul mate puts it). The only explanation for his actions that I've ever heard came from Jim Hone, I think, who said that he hadn't delivered on his promises. No kidding.

How very 'corporate'. A few months back, there was one very good reason to buy the Evening Standard: to read Spurs fan Matthew Norman's absolutely withering attacks on the powers-that-be at Tottenham. Maybe the Echo can take him on loan.

Maybe - clutching at straws here - we need to think of the striker as a non-scoring Heskey-type of player, so that DMG can pick his runs on goal.

Asked and answered on here: http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=4249

Not bad at all, although would prefer Perry instead of Lancashire and maybe have DMG and Lallana switch roles during the game, as long as it confuses the opposition more than us.

Don't you think even a tiny bit of knowledge of what FF actually said might be a better basis for a rant? Oh, and welcome back, Sundance. Where on earth have you b-een since you were b-anned? At least that painful little sojourn to the dark side will have dispelled any impression that you are some kind of Big Shot.

I suspect that it's just as much a case of the Echo censoring itself. The pressures have always been there, and maybe they're now harder to resist. So possibly the urge to go for the story of Southampton's truly astonishing decline has been avoided for the sake of a quiet life. Seems more like cutting your nose off to spite your face, though, because, like the club and its fans, the paper lives and dies by its (falling?) readership. They lose faith in you and you're cooked. When I worked in local newspapers, it was for a paper that set itself up as an alternative voice to the big established rag, and it was a buzz going after the big, the famous and invariably pompous. If that doesn't seem to happen any more, then in a way, places like TSW ARE the alternative - a kind of samizdat of the digital age - if a little chaotic and self-destructive at times. But hey, who'd want it any other way...

The best brokers in the business for this, in my opinion, are London & Country. http://www.lcplc.co.uk/

How quickly that part of the world has changed. In the 1960s, just as the petrodollars started rolling in, the emir of Abu Dhabi (just along the street from Dubai) did what all bedouin would do with their money: he stacked it in huge piles in a back room in his palace. He only stopped doing this when the rats started eating the 100 dollar bills. Then he 'invested' it with a number of fly-by-night characters posing world bankers, who were arguably even more ravenous than the rats. Somehow, in the end, something got built...

Offends me too. It should be: 'You have merely stated that to which I was alluding.' You'll sound much less pompous expressing yourself like that. Trust me.

In today's Evening Standard: 'The Gunners are keeping tabs on Southampton midfielder Morgan Schneiderlin. The French 19-year-old is expected to leave Saints in the transfer window, with Arsenal reported to be leading the chase. His agent, Richard des Voeux, said: "A January move is possible."'

Do you know this to be the case? A career in journalism is advanced by making a name for yourself, whether it's by a strong record of getting 'scoops', the quality of writing (which in sports reporting requires a certain fearlessness), or whatever. Kowtowing to your employer won't get you anywhere near a national newspaper job for example, unless it's in something like the marketing department. Reporters are banned or criticised day in, day out by clubs. Have you not heard Kinnear's outbursts against the Daily Mirror? Have you seen Fergie on the BBC recently?

That's not an answer to my question. What do they agree on? And how is this known?

With what 'FACT' is the Echo in agreement with the club? I don't understand.

I should have spelled out my point more clearly. The reason the TV rights are the only numbers that matter are precisely because it's a huge part of their earnings, and the most vulnerable to change. My son's an Arsenal fan, and after about ten years of going to matches as a 'red' member, he's now officially accepted on to their ST waiting list. He's number 33 thousand and something on the list and is predicted to get his season ticket in 2054! So of course the big clubs will continue filling seats. But the TV industry is in the crapper right now, and the consensus is that Sky and Setanta will not be close to offering the sorts of numbers they do now in the next round of allocations. That spells trouble for highly leveraged clubs - even for ones who can fit 75,000 odd fans into their grounds.

See? You're already thinking of Man U as a CCC club. In the Prem, the only numbers that really matter are not season tickets sold but the numbers of zeros in the price for the television rights.

And I notice the Glazers have brilliantly tied themselves to LIBOR. That must hurt!

I'm too far away to get the Echo. Are you seriously saying that the main local newspaper turns a blind eye to the extraordinary goings-on at the club? That it isn't a 'story' - regardless of whether Leitch or some other reporter deals with it? Speaking as a former newspaper and TV journalist, I find that unbelievable. Funniest of all is the idea that a resourceful reporter wouldn't 'have access' to inside stories at the club. Not having access is like a red rag to a bull to any self-respecting journalist. If you don't have it, you go and get it. The great thing about being a local journalist is having connections. The best reporters who work in their local area feel they have a duty to reflect what happens in their local communities, and not simply the views and prejudices of the powerful. That, pretty much, is the definition of 'The Fourth Estate'.

About £600 million I seem to recall. And yes, the Glazers bought the club basically by getting the club to sell itself to them - they took out massive loans secured against the collateral of the club. Without the Glazers' takeover, Man U would be one of the most, if not the most profitable sports club of any kind in the world.

So maybe he can add a couple of reasons?

So Bassett is quoted, presumably after a bit of pressure from the club, the club is quoted, but no one with a counter view, which is dismissed as being held by 'some fans'. Really, really poor, one-sided journalism. And Bssett's denial falls firmly into the category of non-denial denial.

13. He's presiding over what must be the worst decline in support in the club's history. 14. He has convinced himself he's a 'revolutionary'. (Che Lowe?)

Or to look at it another way, if the club continues to drift as badly as it is under Lowe, he'll be forced out the only we he'll allow - by dragging the club down with him.

A new board, with Salz as Chairman, and with Crouch in the background holding enough of a shareholding to ensure that Lowe is history... ...or ANYONE who can lead this club away from the twin precipices of relegation and administration.