up and away

With the stadium we stand some chance in the future, without it we have none. You're not ****munch of the month are you?

So they should maximise their efforts to get the calamitous Crouch back in charge? Anyone with half a brain cell should realise that if we lose the stadium, it is very difficult to see a way back. Without the stadium it could easily be another Aldershot.

Could be he is more informed than the rest of us, as said earlier he does not do "lost of noise" He made it very clear where he believed the problem lay "the excessive expenditure over the last two years".

I am sure someone on here heard Matty on Radio Hampshire recently (Monday evening?) and it was obvious that he had talked to Lowe about our predicament. With Mark Dennis trying herd him onto the "hang Lowe bandwagon" he was having none of it. For those that did not hear it "the main reason we are in this position today is because of the excessive expenditure over the last two years". Also stating that Lowe was trying to sort out the financial issue to avoid administration and the only thing we can do as fans is to get behind the team. Surprised no one has mentioned this or given it prominence as with the Mary Corbett peice, but I would bet the content of the message just does not fit the agenda.

So this is nothing to do with a PLC chairman's corporate responsibility, then just say so in the beginning instead of making up these fanciful flights.

Where do you get such ******? As PLC chairman, income gradually increased to record levels up to relegation. If you are going to pick a hole with his corporate responsibilities it should be about not maximising profits (or relegation). That would mean far less on players and wages, is that what you are really saying should have happened over these years? As a basis for discussion this is totally ludicrous.

All this says is that Wilde cannot be expecting his personal wealth to be increased from Merlion in the short term. That does not say he has not made a huge amount from Merlion and managed to transfer that to his own personal control legally. It's always good if your company makes you a fortune, it's another matter leaving it within that company and being subject to market movements, especially in the building sector. Anyone with any sense would take this approach and leave the shell behind, always capable of supporting, if and when it is felt required. I looked a while back at Wilde and he has made a lot of money, but just becaue you have all that money does not mean you are prepared to throw it at a football club. Just because you are worth a kings ransom from nothing, does not mean you are prepared to spend most of that on a football club. You get expensive tastes and commitments which whittles down your pot to a small percentage of that total. This is no sort of endorsement for Wilde, but the shell that is now Merlion has little relevance, only from the stand point that it does not look like providing further revenue in the short term, but equally isolated from it's losses. What is of relevance is the money he made from Merlion and what that money is now doing. This is akin to someone who has sold their company, making a pretty packet, only to now find the share price is rock bottom and the company is in debt. It does not worry to that individual, because their money is no longer tied up in that company but in his own personal account.

The mix of experience and youth. Well we certainly have that, but overall I would not rate our senior players even up to Leicester's standard and there lies the problem. We have been competing with League 1 teams and lower for players, so it should hardly be a surprise we are in this position. Many fans stated that it would be no surprise under Pearson this season to be in this position. We lost a hell of a lot of better players from that squad and only ended up avoiding relegation on the last day of the season by a shed load of luck. Why are you suddenly surprised to find us in this position? it was so clearly on the cards.

Look - I feel desperately sorry for these boys, thrust into a man's world. It's a bizarre experiment and it's gone badly wrong. But you know what - when I was a young dancer (performing before a paying audience I might add), if I made a mistake / fell over and heard groans and criticisms, well I just had to pick myself up and learn to try not to make the same mistake again. And be determined to improve. Not run off stage crying and turning up next time scared sh*tless. And I DID learn and I DID improve. I also became wiser. Different 'sport' but same scenario don't you agree? We have been put in this position because of finances, of that there is little doubt. With the exception of Holmes and Schniederlin who we managed to sweet talk, all the senior pro signings are League 1 players at best. For us in the here and now, I cannot see how the booing will help. Maybe down the line when they have disappeared to other clubs those boo's may reap rewards, but I see little in this for the here and now.

I really doubt you would get any argument from any semi intelligent person for that approach, but that does not directly translate to the issue here? All the youngsters we have playing in the youth team could have been brought up with that approach, but that does not mean that booing them would not impact upon their performance? Even senior professionals will suffer from booing? Nerves affect players in different ways, but it is a very big part in allowing any natural talent to perform. As time goes by this effect will diminish with most players, but I can't recall any young player where booing has improved their performance, in fact the opposite.

Was it Crouch? Who said. Seymour Pierce allegedly told Lowe someone would buy his shares at 65p but it turned out not to be for his cabel, only his own! I have not heard Crouch say it was him. You are making assumptions and I am pretty sure you are wrong. I believe you are both correct, just the timing that requires putting in order.

Could it be that he didn't sue South Today or indeed Panorama over the allegations made in "The Shares game" programme because he was reticent to do so because then the whole affair would have been put firmly under the microscope? He did however sue David Mellor for his opinion that the reverse takeover was "incentivised." According to Richard Chorley in his peice "The share game", he had plenty to say regarding the reverse take over. Surprisingly he never made any allegations about Lowe, maybe you would like to add them in? "Messrs Askham, Richards, Hunt, Wiseman, Gordon and McMenemy all failed to do so. They have all committed criminal offences under the companies Act which could lead to their disqualification, heavy fines and /or imprisonment up to 2 years." And as for LM selling his shares, according to the article "The Clubs director of football Lawrie McMenemy saw an initial investment of just £400 pounds turn into a £200,000 pound profit on the first day of trading."

It wasn't helpful though and could clearly have waited until AFTER the Sheffield United game. Sorry Jonah, but most people think both sides are as bad as each other. Crouch could have agreed privately about handing power over as soon as we were out of the relation scrap, but he decided not to do so. Crouch believed investment was just round the corner and holding out to the last minute for that investment to come forward. In the light of no agreement to stand down over an issue he had no chance of winning, then the only action remaining is an EGM. You can point the finger at Lowe and Wilde for raising the issue, but equally you can point the finger at Crouch for the matter being blown up.

A lot of what you say and do has a lot of merit, but others when you distort facts out of known recognition is totally unnecessary. Lowe has his pluses and minuses, but trying to tarnish him in regards to the reverse take over is even something Choreley stopped short of. I completely agree that a lot of what happened during that reverse take over, was shall we say unsavory! But absolutely none of that can be even remotely linked to Lowe's side of that deal, it was all on the Saints directors and occurred prior to the deal being finalised. A period that Lowe had no influence over what so ever. McMoneyme cashed in super quick on that one, but does not even get a mention in passing by most. The big disagreement I have with your stance on Lowe is this "interference" in team affairs. If playing bonuses impact our outgoings, it is right that someone points this out and what can be afforded. If we have a wage bill we cannot afford, everything should be done to get rid of these players to the benefit of the club. I don't care whether this is Lowe, Wilde or Crouch. These are business decisions that need to be made, irrespective of the person. I would not mind betting this also occurred under Burley, when you looked at team selection then. I am half with you on Crouch. Although I firmly believe he is the most stupid of the 3, but he is prepared to put in money, to which there is no substitute. It just goes down to whether the money outweighs the damage or if he has learnt anything? Mary Corbett I can see no value in, unless to highlight the blonde issue. If she could not see past what was happening with our finances or the stupidity of putting all the eggs in the investment basket, she really has nothing to offer apart from being a fan. Irrespective of personal values she may have, you could equally say the same about Jan. Trying to lay the blame at Dave Jones is preposterous, unless the figures given to the board were incorrect. It was obvious to so many from the outside that all the family silver was disappearing at an exponential rate and that is without the availability of the day to day accounts. Where I would say Jones is culpable is using his own vote to align with these issues, although his vote just seems attached to the executives of the day.

The silence was deafening when close to £40M got ****ed against the wall, where were the protests then Mary? You just chase after that mythical investment again.

ooooh look another post blaming fans, pathetic! Wilde purchased his shares for £2m Crouch purchased his for £1.6m and teamed up with other shareholders to control over 60% of the shares, the subsequently called an EGM to remove Lowe, Lowe in turn waited till the day before said EGM waisting thousands of the clubs £'s before deciding to walk! I've come to the conclusion you are nothing more than a sh1t stirring stayaway! I have no problem with JohnnyFartPants or Nickh, we have different views on where and under who the club is heading, but your just on a wind up! And why did Lowe wait until that time? Because your uber hero Crouch that you have been rimming did not make up his mind until that time. So who's on the wind up?

Just answer this question. Knowing the fee for Davies and his high salary. Knowing Davies has been unfit to play for more than minutes this season. Knowing Pulis will not get into the first team. Would you still do the deal with Stoke? I cannot believe how lucky we were to get rid of Davies. By all rights we should having him on our treatment table at his elevated salary for at least most of this season, if not all.

What difference would that have made. He bought the shares, why do you find it so difficult to comprehend. They're not that influential (except Nick Illingsworth, or so he thinks). Illingsworth is the only one who has put out a balanced view over the years, unlike the rest of the muppets who keep getting things so wrong and still believe their opinion has merit. NI said at the time that it was time for Lowe to step down, but would not give Wilde his full backing because there were so many unknowns and irregularities. Pity the other idiots could not have taken a leaf out of his book. Throughout all of this his over riding message has been for all of them to work together, the only way looking back we could have ever achieved anything. We have got a lot of posters on here that have been so wrong about Wilde and various investments yet still spout sheite as if it comes from the oracle itself. Yet this track record gets over looked as they try to promote the new way forward for Saints. Forget the truth and what really matters, as long as Illingsworth does not hate Lowe or just wants the best for Saints, he will be viewed by the muppets as a traitor. Whereas his track record tells the opposite story.

500 more than the pro Lowe march attracted. All the Luvvies together would struggle to put together a 5-a-side team, on top of that they wouldn't know how to play football either. Walked the last mile amongst the group, all very civilised compared to those muppets at the Doncaster game. How many exactly is always difficult to say, especially when you get near the stadium, but a good number. I don't share the views as I don't believe things are that simple, but well done for expressing your own views without intimidating or bullying others.

I wish it were that simple. The idiots that started the trouble at the Doncaster game were physically abusing fans just because they did not join in some manner. I just hope none of the rubbish from pizza boy effects the match. Do what ever you want when the game is not in progress, especially the end. Normally when the play is not too exciting we start getting the Pompey songs, soon after followed by something aimed at the board.

As with the senior squad, there was a group of people. I am pretty sure Elias had a lot to do with Blackstock and Bale. Prost could well have had influence along with Wigley. Wigley was definitely responsible for Kenwynne Jones whilst Sturrock was there and went on the youth budget, albeit far older. So any combination of Jennings, Elias, Wigley, Prost and I would not be surprised if the first team manager was also involved.

It is a very good idea, whether it would work or not is another matter. This is exactly what Derby did to gain promotion to the Premier. But getting to the Premier and staying there are two different animals, something that just does not look possible under present conditions. Knowing this I wonder how many would consider this fanciful after what they have seen happen to Derby? The other point would be having businessmen line up behind Crouch, I can see that split being at best 50/50. Someone like Salz or Davies could achieve this, but they would have to put some of their own money in to get followers and there lies the major problem. Our best shot looks like someone picking us up from the ashes of administration, but it's more likely we end up ground sharing with Eastliegh going down that road.

At first glance your points look sound, but dig deeper and it's not quite that straight forward. As you say "The vast majority of Championship clubs are working under very tight financial constraints" but we are not afforded that luxury because of the financial mess we are in. We are competing with League 1 clubs and lower for experienced players, with a bit of luck with the younger players because of our previous standing. As for being able to get rid of 6 non entities for one decent player, I am not even sure that ratio would get you a leg. Not only are their salaries high, but the playing bonuses must be similarly high. When I look at someone like Pulis, I can understand many fans questioning the worth of such a player. Then I look at the fact that deal incorporated a very expensive, injured player going the other way. I still can't believe we managed to get rid of Davies and I still don't know if he has started a league game for Stoke yet? If the down side of having Pulis is getting Davies off the wage bill, is there even a seconds thought? Ther are plenty that could do the job, but I am not sure many will make the right decision irrespective of how unpopular the decision is. We are in desperate times and no decision in this environment is going to be easy or straightforward. I just wish fans would look at what needs to be done, irrespective of who is making that decision. They now have the wage bill under control by even the lower CCC standards, but that is no where near enough for us because of the mountain of debt we created beforehand. What Crouch showed clearly in those final weeks at the helm was that he was prepared to sit there taking no action, waiting for a magical investor to appear. Pleading for more time as it was just around the corner. Well if that's a corner, the curvature of the earth could well fit that criteria.

Because we would have bigger gates = more revenue = less pressure from the bank. The only way we would get bigger gates is by winning and we would not of started the season with a stupid Dutch experiment wasting what little revenue we had on 5 loans who are so poor cant get in ahead of 17 year olds. Pretty simple really if look at it from the middle ground - I want all 3 out but this current board are a joke and a mess. So take away R Wright, Lucetti, Safri, Wright, Licka, Stern, Vignal, Jesus, Hammil, Viafara, 1/2 of Saga, + god knows how many others, you believe that Pearson will improve upon his results without these players? Anyone with any intelligence said at the time that relegation this season under Pearson was more than likely, which was not a reflection on Pearson but the position we were in. We have been lucky this season with some of the younger signings we have made, but trying to compete against League 1 sides (or lower) for the more experienced players has been a real problem. Our gates have been declining markedly since relegation and if you believe that Pearson with a far depleted squad is going to go on winning runs which he never demonstrated previously, you are deluded. We hit record lows of 17000 last season and it has got worse this season. When you factor in the revenue from gates the picture is far worse, biased by cheap tickets and add ons similar to what we saw against Forest. You can look at how well Pearson is doing at the present, but equally you could compare Doncaster and Forest between this and last season and it's impossible to put in a comparison of any worth. Forest could even go out and afford Rob Earnshaw, dreamland for us. Loaned out! then add on the fact of all the other loans brought in at the time and the permanent signing of Davies. And as we subsequently find out, these loans of Rasiak and Skacel have a habit of coming back on your books, because other clubs are not prepared to pay those wages. So yes Crouch may have been ****ing on the bonfire with one hand, but he had the petrol pump fully open in the other hand. You can say Crouch would have done this or done that, but in reality he did the square root of fook all. He clearly stated what his plan was to just sit there and wait for investment, some masterplan.

Who when then sold on for a profit! Davies was not an error IMO but I suppose that bit is just opinion. It doesn't matter anyway because we can both agree that he is a better choice than Lowe and Wilde can't we? That is the salient point. And we could still have Davies on our books now, how many minutes has he played for Stoke? We had to take their managers son as part of the deal, but beggars cannot be choosers and it was still a deal we were glad of. And that's without all the loans on even higher salaries.