hughieslastminutegoal

You can't compare eras in this way. Paine swapped to a midfield role happily enough and held his own more than successfully against teams like Man U when Besty was on-song. No doubt if he was a youngster in the modern game he'd be fitter and skill is skill. "Old fashioned trickery" was enough to confound absolute thugs who'd kick your legs off as soon as look at you, and I have no doubt a player of his ability would be able to adapt to the modern game. As a midfielder his passing was outstanding, the days of the Stan Matthews school of jinking was well and truly over long before Terry ended his career. Sydenham was an out and out speed merchant down the wing, and yes his crossing wasn't always up to scratch, but was no worse than any of our "wonderful youngsters". And most important of all, don't forget they played with a proper leather football in those days, not a beach volleyball.

It has to be asked, who would you go to to compile a list of good things? There's..... Oh and there's... Not forgetting...er, what's his name? But he built the stadium. Oh yes, and he arranged the finance for the stadium; and let's not forget we wouldn't have the stadium...

And the other thing he "forgot" was that without much tv revenue you need bums on seats, but he has such contempt for supporters that this element seems a total blind spot for him. He clearly believes that he can make "his club" a feeder club for The Arse 'n All and Tottingham Hopestars amongst others, making enough to allow him to ignore fans as much as possible.

This is an interesting concept. So SFC bring on other clubs' youngsters for them... and then they go back? The question is do we believe it is just a short-term policy through necessity, or is it how Lowe thinks the club should be run long-term? If it is to be a long-term policy, can anyone tell me what supporters are actually supporting? A bunch of 3-6 month loans? Are we supporting a club in the way most of us used to understand it? Because that's not what I understood "club" meant when I grew up supporting.

Total football - everyone can play anywhere - don't you remember?

He said pressure, not abuse from home fans. If kids can't take pressure then don't play kids who can't hack it. They are well-paid "entertainers". If they can't take a bit of negative pressure, it's just as well they aren't trying their luck at earning their living as musicians or comedians. They'd find out what real heckling is all about nice and close up.

You're not good with irony, then.

And we'll end up with a settled side just in time for the loans to go back in January. And then we can start all over again.

But we need to get defenders who will stay beyond January, or it's try-again time. I don't think we can risk more discontinuity that late in the season.

You'll not be a supporter then.

A scintilating, mouth-watering, humdinger of an all-square no score result masquerading under the misnomer of "hard-fought draw".

His only point is that somehow a supporter has a duty always to be a supporter however the club is run. Sorry, that isn't a definition of a supporter, it is the definition of a sycophant. To be a supporter, one choses from alternatives and willingly makes a choice to support something worthy of support. Lowe has made it crystal clear he thinks supporters should be a bunch of uncritical mindless followers, who should spend their money on his product irrespective of its worthiness , its quality or its value. And not only that, he has insulted them when they express their opinions. Lowe sounds as if he learned business from Gerald Ratner. Well, look what happened to him.

fair enough, you are probably right, but if separation were possible, administration for SLH would not cause a ponts deduction for the independent football club, would it? No there isn't much mileage in a second-hand football stadium, so whoever became the the owner of it would need a tenant.... and the football club CCC "franchise" would have an ongoing value.

So they separate while both bits are (just about) going concerns. SLH own the stadium and other bits an pieces. The football club has an agreement to pay rent on the stadium. After a "decent" period, SLH is put into Administration? I'm sure this is problematic, and may well not be possible, but just think someone has a trick up their sleeve.

But would that be the case? Someone would own a stadium. They would want a tenant. You would't wind up SLH until you'd set up a tenancy of the stadium.

Is the football club itself a company, and could it be separated completely from Southampton Leisure Holdings? If so, is it possible that this is what Lowe and Co are getting ready to do? If they could hive off the club as a business (temporarily at least) paying its way because they've got costs down to absolute rock bottom, could they then put SLH into Administration and then into liquidation? Lowe wanted into SFC when a stadium was mooted at Stonham, but eventually was almost forced into going ahead with something he didn't really want - a stadium in Northam. Could he find an out from this now, getting rid of those debts but the same people still owning the ongoing football club? I'd put nothing past Askham and Lowe in concert. I readily admit I am no company law expert, but can anyone with the requisite knowledge comment on the possibility or otherwise of something like this happening?

How can he be doing a good job? He readily admits the players can only play one way, and when we are 3 goals down he does like for like substitutions. Is it the players who can only play one way, or JP who can only coach one way?

Listening to ANYTHING Sir Clive Woodward had to say. It's been an inexorable decline ever since.

I too just have those nagging feelings that Lowe/Asham and co. have a plan. I pose a bit of speculation on the 'administration now?' thread - for others more knowledgeable than me to shoot down, of course.

I haven't really thought too much about the SLH and football club structure and maybe I'm completely off the wall but ...I'm pondering the possibility that something along the following lines might not be too far away from certain people's minds: SLH and SFC separate as companies. SFC become formal tenants of SLH stadium owner. SFC reduces costs to absolute minimum so they can pay a rent, and pay cheap players/management etc out of gate revenue. Hence the obscene rush to unload as many of the senior pros as possible. SFC is really where the value is at the moment- i.e. the value of the franchise. If the club can pay it's way, just maybe they then put SLH into administration. Somone takes posession of the stadium and debts are written off on liquidation of SLH. (I don't know how much equity SLH has in the stadium, but it may just about be balanced by current debts.) SFC soldiers on as a 'sellable franchise' with a tenancy of the stadium, with the same shareholders (more or less) as before. Maybe SFC could even keep Jackson's Farm if it was given to the club in the first place. Maybe all this needs a bit of work, but could it be so far from the truth?

Absolutely spot on.

If Lowe was perplexed about that, then he's learned even less about football, and footballers, than I thought.

He sat on the bench once - not striking. He played last night - not striking. He put in a decent effort at Sheff U - seemingly not sulking. He's obviously only playing now to put him in the window for January, with the added potential benefit that his experience might help, albeit temporarily. But taking your point, maybe he has decided to stop sulking/striking, but if he was sulking/striking, and I really wanted to unload him, I'd have used some of the wages I was going to waste paying him to do nothing on subsidising a loan away, or paying part of his wages in a permanent move somewhere else. After all, Lowe must have realised that ignoring him was not likely to get him off the payroll until January at least. I really think it's odds on that the obsession with playing youth right from the off got in the way of sensibly dealing with Skacel.

I agree with you, I don't really rate him much either, though he is potentially better than some of the kids. You seem to be agreeing with me because you say that playing gives him the incentive to do well and secure a juicy contract elsewhere. Someone seems to have bitten the bullet that playing him is needed even if it might cost us more (though the club actually denied that - but you seem to think the denial was untrue!). Motivating him to play and earn that juicy contract elsewhere should have been in the plan from the outset, not set out to make the guy even more resentful. There was no logic whatsoever in ostracising the guy and paying him for nothing until January. You could have used some of that money to subsidise a move away maybe. You'd have saved something at least.