up and away

They probably look at those thwats down the road and decide financial freefall down a 60' sword with only the family jewels for brakes was not for them. Even with another year of the parachure left!

Sorry Ron, this is what i dont get... Its been pretty much in teh national media that we are in admin and buyers are sought - anyone serious would either appoint their own broker or deal direct. MJ and even SG are not in a position to buy the club themselves so why get involved? Everyone they contact will know the club is for sale if they have any interest whatsoever in a) sainst b0 owning a football club For me the ONLY reason we have MJ involved is because he is always keen to play a role - and his 'backers' are numerous because they dont ahvethe financial clout to do it on their own - so we potentially end up with a consortium of 6-8 - how long before they fall out as more money is required to prop us up? That's about it in a nutshell. I just cannot believe those that have fallen for his time and time again and already know in reality what the answer is. When these things start up they go out looking to get investment from various sources and this becomes known. When you know the sort of people that have been approached, it is not difficult in coming to a conclusion about how this is going to pan out. Most of the time you just have the Billy buffalo bollax giving it large which subsequently evaporates under cash flow has hit a problem. Fry at the present time is considering if there is an actual option to liquidation. If anyone thinks these muppets are actually helping the situation they could easily be in for an abrupt awakening. Fry will not be letting this go on for much longer and when everything disappears into thin air, with everyone realising there is nothing coming through, those that could of done something don't have the time or Fry may not bother entertaining them. I have always believed that in the near future a club that once graced the Premier will go out of existence. You could not get better conditions for that scenario then what exists at present. Our only saving grace appears with the council being able to be influential with the stadium. Even with the planning restrictions on St Mary's, if football is not played there for a season, even the council will have a rethink.

It's good to see the art of negotiation is alive and well. That intelligence and common sense can be used to address even the most complex issues of our time. Well done Leon.

Next we will get "the very nice bailiff", even made me a cup of tea.

Even better, they are still watching the share price!

What little I do know rearding this bid puts it about 1 step up from the monkey chicken. Anyone really serious and ITK and you never get to hear anything until it has all happened. The only thing you do get snippits from are the chancers, trying to group sufficient funds from a myriad of investors. When you get potential buyers having to leak and self promote at every opportunity, you don't require qualifications in home economics to work this one out. If anyone predicted the SISU bid then fair enough, otherwise they are just floating their boat with this ******.

Very good, where did that originate?

Readily accept I'm rather out of my depth and no expert, here. However, my (limited) understanding is that the administrator's role/duty involves attempting to keep the company assets together as a sort of job lot and to find a buyer who can make the company a going concern. A liquidator or asset stripper would just chop up the assets into bits and sell the flagpole to Mr. X and the Ted Bates statue to Mr. Y. Am pretty sure we are still in a phase whereby there's a legal/fiduciary duty on Mark Fry to save SLH "as is" rather than to sell it off in bits, even if the latter would be in the interests of the creditors. I think this is the difference between administration and bankruptcy/liquidation. Only once we go into liquidation would they start selling off the bits, which only seems held off at present by the offers on Fry's table. Those go out the window and it's out with the gas axe. That does not mean that the administrator would not sell the business to a pikey with cash in one hand a a lit gas axe in the other. He will not be asking them their 5 point plan to return to the Premier. Because it is a football club you are correct, there is a big difference due to the nature of the business and it's restrictions by planning.

Everything I am hearing does not fill me with confidence. I get the feeling the preferred option that comes through the system will start baulking when it comes down to handing over actual money. Then leaving us with option 2 which could easily go the same way, then total reliance upon the only to be used in absolute desperation, the back up option. I just hope the back up option is worth more then melting everything down and selling off at a booter. As for Mark Fry, he would gladly sell it to Mandaric to chop everything up into peices and sell it as souveniers to Pompey supporters, if that gave the best return.

Being within one hours drive for any multi million pound deal is about as significant as having a particular colour in the company's header. SISU made an offer for Saints, which if accepted would have gone through. There is little doubt that Saints at the time were a far more attractive package than Coventry, but a far greater problem in getting an agreement. SISU had decided to move for Coventry but would have preferred Saints if the conditions were correct. Because of the time issue with Coventry, everything had to be done quickly or the Coventry option would disappear for SISU.

Thats probably the biggest of Lowe's mistakes to be honest - not the concept, but thethought it would work in the CCC. Think he had visions of us being the Arsenal of the Championship and walking this league .... As more of a fan of the purist approach, I can not fault the desire to see home grown kids come through playing attacking passing football but as many have said, the evidence for the folly is in the results.... its sad in more than one way, because I would hate to see us end up doing the opposite extreme with hit and hope hoofball to old journeymen pros on a last earner and the decline of the academy... Go back to position we were in at the beginning of the season and our only chance of getting out of this mess lies in those youth players, which sadly was not good enough. This was not a one season problem but one that would have extended over many seasons, even with being successful in selling on any natural young talent for a decent wedge. Go back a couple of years to the point Lowe left the first time and you have the option of being able to afford the right blend of senior and youth players, but still needing to sell talent. The senior pro's we could afford have been League 1 material, we never had the luxury of a decent blend. There was little point in wasting money on these senior pro's when there was no improvement over what we already had. In our last season in the Premier, we spent money under Redknapp in the January window that we could not afford, we over extended ourselves. Now you can argue whether that is the right approach or not spend the money, reorganise and try to come back afresh! As normal with the first season down from the Premier, the players just did not adapt and our challenge was all but over by January. We implemented a massive cull of numbers and salary. Wilde takes control and basically reverses that cull and we end up with a bloated, over paid squad which we could not sustain. We never recovered from that start, especially when no attempt was made to seriously address the problem. Throughout all of this I have had one simple message, stop pishing away the family silver, reorganise to our budget and live within our means, developing the youth to a maximum to help our cause. When Lowe came back the second time we were already doomed by the failure to get rid of the salaries of high paid players, let alone receive a fee for them. This is not hindsight, something I clearly stated well before Lowe returned. With Crouch sitting on his hands waiting for Fulthorpe I have no problem with Lowe coming back, at least I knew somone would try and actually address the problem. Lowe got us relegated from the Premier, but look at every other club that has suffered that fate and I can find little exception there. We suffered from virtually a full first team out with injury and at the end of the day that did for us. Everyone backed Redknapp to the hilt in trying to avoid relegation but he got nutmegged by Bryan Robson. Lowe screwed up with SCW, a good idea in the Premier but we could never afford him out of it. Wilde although only there a very short time was the catalyst for everything that subsequently happened, with Crouch ably supporting and adding fuel to the fire. Even after we had inflicted such damage we still had plenty of time and money to avoid our current predicament, but those concerned were more interested in petty squabbles than the club, something that was mirrored in fans. What has happened now uder Lowe is something that was unavoidable because of our financial stupidity over the previous years and the inability for the youth players to save us both on the field and financially by sales. Lowe is partly responsible because of the over spend with SCW, Wilde is responsible for the lions share and Crouch not far behind. For sheer stupidity Crouch has to be king. This is not a recommendation for a Lowe return as I can see little his skill sets add to the issue now, but I will still accept what is best for Saints, even if it is the king of the idiots, Crouch.

Pearson had a bonus for keeping us up, but salary was not the deciding factor I am sure. Salary was only mentioned as a complimentary factor, never the deciding factor. The facts are we went into administration because of financial stupidity, yet this gets over looked. Financial mismanagement brought us to our knees, which would have happened either this or next season.

Slightly different I would say. Leeds decided to pish it all over the side before taking their tumble down the cliff. Saints waited until they slipped to the first ledge before deciding to pish theirs over the edge, then taking the resulting tumble onwards and downwards.

We shall see if we have some decent season ticket deals for next year. I agree with um though. Saints suffer exceptionally because of the average distance supporters travel. That with the associated costs and the product has left it's mark. It's one thing travelling to watch ManU, another watching Saints in our predicament. Something David Luker has mentioned a long time ago. I expect an initial upsurge at the beginning, then a fall off below last seasons levels. Our decent gates were associated with low ticket prices apart from a couple of emotionals at the end. Because of our ongoing financial issues next season we will not be able to afford to drop our prices significantly, if we do we will suffer in the team.

Facts prove otherwise. When we had the greatest empathy factor at the club upon Wildes incoming, season tickets and gate revenues dropped. Norwich and Charlton fans just support their club to a greater degree than Saints. That's our standing with debt and points deductiotions added on top. They will end up where they rigtly belong because of their support, the exact same for us.

If Crouch had just the minimal filling between his ears there would have been no Lowe. Elevate him to that status and it's more than likely we would not now be in administration, but having a good blend of Senior and Junior palyers, with enough money for years into the future.

Well if it fits in with the brothers who did the Chelsea barrcks development we have some proper money behind them Why would anyone with real money require someone else to represent them (the local consultant, not Matt)? As much as we love Matt, if you are looking at bringing him into the bid it all looks extremely weak. Matt's talents lie elsewhere and the only reason someone would get him involved, would be to drum up the pennies and placate the fans. Everything I have heard makes me believe there is no real money out there, just the usual idiots scratching around. Th proof of funds has determined they have some capital and assets, but it does not guarantee they can afford to spare but a fraction of that.

I would not argue with that, but the bloke comes with so much negative along with being our best manager in history. I don't know of anyone who had to work with him subsequently that only viewed him as a nightmare, whether ex player or what. It has never been about Saints, it has always been about Lawrie, the true Saint bit never comes into the picture. A lot of the negative aspect which has permeated through the club over the last 10 years, in my opinion comes from this source. Give him his recognition for everything good he has done for us, then send him off into the sunset so we can enjoy what's left.

Your recall seems curiously selective , was it not Leon Crouch who authorised the loan transfers of Skacel & Rasiak in January 08 ? So just who's point was curiously selective?

Yes £700000 seems realistic to me Hope the rest is true I don't think you realise what you are wishing for. This all ties in with everything I have been hearing about our possible owners. Not as bad as Bournemouth, but not a great deal better off. If you have to sell Surman for £700k, you really are in the bottom basement.

Your recall seems curiously selective , was it not Leon Crouch who authorised the loan transfers of Skacel & Rasiak in January 08 ? This has to be the best yet, We were discussing Crouch having any serious intentions of getting costs under control. Having lost that argument you now throw all this under "we had to do it to stay up". Crouch has made it clear to several that he was gainst Euell, but you don't then go signing Davies on a far higher salary and try and play the cost cutter. Absolutely no mention of signing Saga either? strangely selective here on wanting to cut costs. This is very simple, there are no indications that Crouch showed any serious attempt to get costs under control. Just the act of signing Davies permanently and the loan of Pearce was enough to offset any savings. You can try and squirm this round to some other avenue more to your liking, but the original statement that "there is absolutely no sign that Crouch was serious about getting any costs under control." is irrefutable.

How do I square that ? - quite easily really . As UP has so succinctly pointed out the wage bill grew to such unsustainable proportions while SFC was under the control of previous regime(s) not while Crouch was Chairman . I find it disappointing when the basic facts of the matter are so blatantly ignored . The latter stages of the 07/08 season saw us in serious danger of relegation and our new manager (Nigel Pearson) quite reasonably asked for temporary replacements for injured squad members , are you seriously telling me you didn't approve of the loan transfers of Richard Wright when we had all our keepers simultaneously out injured or Chris Lucketti when we lost Andrew Davis ? :confused: Fair minded Saints fans will agree players such as Wright , Lucketti and Perry were instrumental in keeping us up last season so in my view any temporary adverse impact on the wage bill can be easily justified as cost effective . Perhaps you would have preferred we'd been relegated 12 months ago in order to save a relatively small amount of money - if so I'm prepared to bet you'd be in a minority of one on here if you do . If you don't like Leon Crouch for some reason then I've no problem with any reasoned and fair criticism based on his actual record , bias on the other hand I just find egregious . So let me get this muppet speak straight. Because we already had an unsustainable wage bill, there was no harm in adding to it? We off loaded Skacel and Rasiak, but permanently signed a higher wage earner in Davies! We then added to that in the loans of O'Halloran, Ian Pearce, Ricketts, Wright, Perry, Lucketti and Pericard. You are no longer even bothering to argue the case on reducing costs, going with a different track that they were needed to stay up. Well all you are doing there is passing the problem on to who ever tries to clear the financial mess up. You are in no way solving the problem but making it worse. So without all these loan players which were now vital for our survival of Hammill, Bennet, O'Halloran, Ian Pearce, Ricketts, Wright, Perry, Lucketti and Pericard. And not being able to afford Davis, Davies, John, Rasiak, Skacel, Saga, Safri, Viafara, Jesus, Licka, Wright. You then feel we have any chance of staying up the following season, where a team that had these players available to them escaped relegation on the last day of the season? All that did was store the problems up for the future and your pathetic attempts to claim reasoned and fair criticism, what a muppet. If at any time a combination of any two from Crouch, Wilde or Lowe went to the executives and told them to reign the expenditure in, it would have been done. They had to get the approval from two of these to continue when Thompson was mooted for chairman, so it could easily have been done if either Crouch or Wilde sided with Lowe over expenditure. No one was thinking about Saints, just their own petty squabbles.

Your recall seems curiously selective , was it not Leon Crouch who authorised the loan transfers of Skacel & Rasiak in January 08 ? Those the ones that we were not going to sell a week earlier? So you put out players on loan with one hand, then take on players on loan in another? One being the highest salary at St Mary's! The simple fact is that salaries were at their highest of 81% of revenue, how exactly do you square that?