up and away

Am i getting a bit confused here, but i thought it was Wilde and his Execs that spent all the money post relegation.:confused: Maybe you should ask Crouch exactly what he meant by this statement? "I opposed the mass exodus of staff at the club, we are losing too many good people. I knew it would be a real battle and it has been. I am devastated. I have spent the last 18 months battling these people." Then taking into the comments of Dave Jones at the last AGM, I stayed and supported Leon Crouch, Patrick Trant and Lee Hoos to try and resolve the situation. After not accepting the SISU bid we were in a dire financial state which we still are. The compare that to Crouch's statement at that exact period. We have no intention of selling our best players. There is a new board now and we will draw a line under everything that has gone before. As far as I am concerned we are going forward now with a good squad of players. We are not in a desperate situation. and Saints chairman Leon Crouch has dismissed reports the club has approached Arsenal in a bid to secure an early cash settlement in the Theo Walcott transfer, in order to avoid administration. Then with all that knowledge, you go and agree the permanent signing of Andrew Davies, soon to become one of the highest wage earners at the club? Still confused? I thought so.

No this mutual friend has a holiday home near the French south coast but Mary did not go there. They had the conversation at a wedding they both intended. Mary is pretty upset by this misapprehension. It is awkward for her too because she does not want to compromise her friend. I hope this clears things up. Someone in the family is talking porkies, because it was stated that Mary went to a lot of time and trouble to actually fly down there herself? I wonder how he could have got hold of the wrong end of the stick there? That misplaced belief in the magic investor helped create the atmosphere which created the financial mess we are now in. Again it was recanted that Crouch still believes the Paul Allen interest to be genuine? Is there now a difference of opinion between Mary Corbett and Crouch over this so called interest?

IF we managed to stay up and out of administration it will be a miracle and those involved in that deserve to stay, that includes Lowe and Wilde. But I can also see that all we may have done is just delayed things for another day. For that reason you would have to consider anyone else prepared to put a few million into the club, even Crouch or Mandaric. If Crouch would stop with this "I'll show you mine, if you show me yours" ****** he may be taken more seriously. Without doubt Crouch is THE most stupid of the 3 and is heavily responsible for the position we find ourselves in. That does not mean I cannot accept Crouch if it is for the better of Saints. Just forget all the personalities and look back at how much better things would have been if all 3 worked together. Even at the start of this season that would still have been an option and by doing so, Crouch would have had enough influence to keep Pearson. But as per usual, these ****ing contests can never have the 3 of them working together.

Anyone who went to the Burnley game at home could easily get the opposite impression of Pearson uniting the fans, just think back to the atmosphere after the end of that game, along with the boo's. There was total unity in the euphoria of escaping relegation on the final day of the season. I liked Pearson and thought he should of stayed, but equally I realised relegation was still more than likely under him. There is no doubt in my mind that Jan lost the plot against Doncaster because of the pressure and that is what did for him in the end.

Yes, thank goodness. Where would we be without him ..............

How long has everyone on the forum been saying that? The point is that it hasn't happened. And that is the reason we are in our current mess. It would be even more poetic if Crouch came in now with money, he could have done that at the beginning and actually influenced matters. Go back to all the mess we have created and you can see at every turn it would have been far better for the club to have worked together. It will not happen and we will be left with the pieces.

Fine. But the point the Hoddleites forget is that there were plenty of other good managers around who could have been appointed other than Sturrock. It wasn't a case of, "if we can't have Hoddle it has to be Sturrock". The ommission of Hoddle is irrelevant. It is no more significant in our decline than the ommission of Jose Morinho, Barry Fry or Brian Clough. The board got the decision wrong and then followed it up by an even worse one (Wigley). That is completely wrong and one of the main reasons that pushed us towards Wigley, there were no stand out candidates. Blackburn were in exactly the same position as us and went for Mark Hughes, which worked out well. But Hughes had no club management experience and only Wales on his cv. Looking at things objectively, Craig Brown or Andy Roxborough had better pedigrees than Hughes. Go back over the suitable candidates at the time and you then see why someone would look at Hoddle, even after all that had passed.

Now I accept that you're not the sharpest tool in the box, despite being a teacher so I'll explain in very simple terms. The Board decided not to appoint Hoddle, not the fans, The Board. Now I understand that it suits your Hoddle w@nk fantasy to say how it's the fans fault as you shoot your load, but seriously, get over it. To be fair, the main reason the board did not back Lowe regarding Hoddle was because of the reactions of the fans to his reappointment. The fact it would cause more unrest in difficult times was one thing they thought should be avoided. The board members themselves that voted against Hoddle stated that it was an error, giving their reason as fan reaction.

you cant say it was coopers signing and cherry pick what is good and bad...ffs phillips scored in his first game and played quite well.. i remember a lot of occaisions SMS signing "super kev"...he was a good player It's not me doing the cherry picking but yourself. Go and look at the interview with Killer on Javi's site and you will see him mentioning Cooper and their contact way before WSG, even though he was signed during WGS tenure. Phillips was never a bad player, but he never lived up to what he had done previously. I can only assume you never went to those games otherwise you would understand. As someone else has stated, Ormerod could be judged as more effective by some for what he did for Saints. Dave Jones was the real hero of the transfer and his buys laid the foundation of our Premier stay for years to come. All managers have good and bad points, but I would still pick out WGS for what he did for us over Hoddle and Jones. The 1-0 win at home over ManU was the classic WGS and showed just how a fit well organized team could compete with the best and beat them. We played 2 banks of 4 and nullified anything that ManU tried to throw at us. Every player prepared to leave his foot in to make life difficult. Then Beattie being unstoppable in heading that goal with minutes to go. I rate WSG as the best, but I don't need to be blind to the facts to come to that decision.

The one thing that really concerns me is losing St Mary's. In normal times I don't believe this would be a major concern, but in the current economic climate I believe this to be a real possibility. The stadium is no real use to anyone else and with the planning approval restrictions that locks that in to the football. But if we go into administration it would not surprise me to see NU want to get shot of the liability at a bargain price. It then depends upon who would pick up the stadium and what their intentions were. If the price was right I could see picking up St Mary's as a good investment long term. You would initially be getting revenue from the club for allowing games to be played, which although not bringing in high returns, enough to make the investment hold it's own for that period. Then sometime down the road when the property market has recovered to sufficiently high levels, up goes the rent to a level the club can no longer sustain. The property will still have the same planning restrictions upon it, but given a year or two of St Mary's lying empty, I am sure the council would gladly look at some redevelopement for the area, even given the protests that would ensue. If we can manage to hang onto the stadium in some form, by what ever means you can see the possibility of coming out of this mess several years down the line. If we lose that stadium then the prospect of being a poor mans Brighton or Aldershot really does come to the fore. Many fans will say this is rediculous and you only have to look at recent history and the experience of other clubs to see this as being alarmist. Normally I would agree with that view, but factor in the current economic climate and the fact the UK looks like being hit far harder than other nations and it is no longer out of the realms of possibility. We are just in the wrong place at the wrong time for our current predicament and the penalty could be far greater than imagineable to anyone.

WGS and HOddle were the best managers we had in recent times, But I would put more faith in Jack of the beanstalk than these two over purchases. Phillilps - never delivered during his time with us and took a long time to even find his feet. Killer - was Coopers signing. Niemi - was not even WSG's preference I thought Williams was WSG's best signing, followed by Telfer. Telfer was a donkey, but for the price and what he contributed I cannot complain. Then look at all the bad signings and his record is very poor on the transfer front, nearly as bad as Hoddle. That said all managers have good and bad points and like you I still have so much regard for what WSG did for us. But looking back things had gone stale for WSG way before he left, we went on a terrible run of just picking up draws now and again in his last months of tenure. I firmly believe the rot had set in months before WSG had left, whether that was down to him knowing he was off or other factors, but it was evident.

How in fooks name can applying points deductions over two seasons be justified ? If that is the case, we are not just looking at relegation, and administration, we are looking at winding-up within a couple of years as well if we dont find a buyer with money. Fookin hooray, a chink of light is starting to come through. If we go into administration it will be because we cannot meet all our liabilities and have no chance of meeting our CVA's and all will be carried forward to next year. Maybe you would like to offer an opinion as to what more Lowe could have done to avoid administration? Maybe get a bit nasty with all those high earning players he was trying to get rid of? or would that be too much of a turn of face for you? We will be as nigh on as bad as Leeds were with one noteable exception, no Ken Bates or Leeds crowds just to keep afloat. Just "You show me yours and I'll show you mine" Leon to come to our rescue, who's been up to his neck in this mess from the beginning. If we go into administration in the current climate, I can easily see a situation where we could end up ground sharing with Eastliegh, because we were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Again administration puts any efforts on the field into the no real significance bin for what we could optimistically expect. This will all come back to one thing, ****ing all those transfer fees and parachute monies against the wall.

Things are far worse than that, I doubt that sort of money now would change the banks intent. The club had to get the bank to buy into things long term over several years, such that sales from the youth players would be able to remove our overdraft. This was not a one year plan as soon as we failed to get fees or sell the high earners, compound that with no big offers for the other young talent and decreasing gates. I don't believe they have enough / prepared to put in enough to save us. Barclays and the economy in general are in deep trouble and they will be looking to extricate themselves pretty soon, irrespective of what we now do. Even if we take the point deduction this season, I still feel we will get hit with a deduction for not agreeing our CVA in time. In the case of Leeds they started the next season with -15 points, so I am not sure exactly what the position would be come the start of next season. If we are looking at that sort of points deduction this season the arguments regarding Poortvliet and Pearson will become irrelevant and it will be our finacial mismanagement that has done for us.

When you compare us to Norwich, you have to ask who deserves to stay up more? Norwich have been served up more shiete then ourselves and are still supporting their team in good numbers. We had record low crowds last season with the average only being bumped up by the freebies and kids. Our fan base is disappearing fast but there is extenuating circumstances because of the demography, magnified by the economy and quality of football. It does not look good and combined with the failure to sell players, will mean our goose is cooked.

I think NI has been spot on for a long time. When you look at his position over Wilde, investment and the point he keeps repeating throughout the years for the major share holders to work together to sort our problems out. Then you have all these other muppets who backed Wilde to the hilt, ploughed into the magic investment like they had already won the pools. Conveniently forgetting these previous sound decisions as if they had no part in them. What I particularly liked was how NI when presented with the inside information on the Fulthorpe proposals, laid it out in basic form without bias. A monumental investment scheme with St Mary's at the hub. Why, because being attached to the stadium would ease plans through (already no problem as their existed a council white paper specifically for this) and the fact you would have 25,000 football fans passing through on match days. Compare that with all the shiete we had from other "informed" sources.

It would not surprise me if this does not have something to do that other porcine ex player, come Radio Hant's commentator, commonly known as "the hoover". Normally found availing himself of hospitality any where in the Southampton area with special pockets for a full load. When you leave paying customers with little remains, it would not surprise me if something was not done in this direction?

Frank I don't want to escalate this - of course your opinion is welcome and legitimate, its just that there are times your posts do tend to lecture, sermonise or whatever the correct word is. I am sure we all do it to a degree because it is a way of persuading others to come round to our viewpoints but if you could read your some of your posts as an outsider you would probably see what I am saying. You have no idea of Crouch's precise motives in offering the £2m and yet you are prepared to criticise from what appears to be your chosen moral highground. We have seen what has gone on in the past and even those reduced to communication in braile alone could not fail to spot that all parties coming together is our only hope. There will be no magic investor to save the day so we shall just have to hope for the best from what is remaining. If Crouch wanted to he could put that £2M in now and do a lot of good (afterall he's not worried about what will happen to it?). We know that will never happen, so what will happen to that money. Be used to buy up the charred remains or not even bother. Equally you can blame Lowe and Wilde for not finding a way of letting that money come in, even by stepping aside. If the 3 main parties came together for the good of the club it is more than probable that something may be achieved, but the way we are going no good can come.

Charlton did exactly what many on here are advocating and made that big leap of faith with Curbishley, investing heavily during his last season. That heavy investment is the reason they are currently in a worse position that us in a shorter space of time

In reality we were fooked come the end of last season when factoring in all the players we would lose. Things are very bad at the present time but it is not unexpected. As for those clamouring for Salz involvement, exactly how did he help when he was working behind the scenes before? There is one simple answer, someone with money and I don't mean "I'll show you mine, if you show me yours" Crouch. I keep thinking that we should be no worse off than Leeds, but without someone like Ken Bates I am not so sure. We are now just reaping everything that we have sown in the past. If you could not see it then and bother doing anything about it when it mattered. We just have to suck up and take it, irrespective of who is in the boardroom. I don't care if Lowe goes or stays as I can't see anyone being able to do anything at this stage without real money. But anyone who thinks all will be well with the idiots that got us into this mess in the first place is delusional. We have had the party, ****ed it all up and now we have to pay the bill.

I feel we need to get control of the midfield to get the right result and that to me means Gillet putting putting in the performances he did at the start of the season. If he cannot, one of the others will need to get a grip on midfield. What will actually happen I don't know, but 10 minutes in I am pretty certain we will all have a good idea.

So all the extra juniors dont buy food, drink, programmes, stuff in megastore? For your info we were 8 stewards down for the Forest game so you can discount that from your sums. Christ on a bike "The only real profit could come from additionals spent within the stadium" Totally missing the point. The one off for the Forest game is something I feel everyone was behind. But that one off will not represent a pricing structure for a season. Do your own maths, put in your own figures, then look at what has happened with other CCC clubs who have been through the same issues.

I fully agree with the club. Slashing prices will cause us to lose more money. I will post the maths on here later. When you look at the deals going round for the Forest game, it is not difficult to believe that one off would not have raised a lot of extra ticket revenue. Lets assume for an average game (16500) without all the offers we have 11,500 ST holders, 1,000 away fans, 3000 adults at £24, 1000 juniors at £12, gives £84,000. For Forest (26500) assuming 11,500 St holders, 1000 away fans, 9000 adults at £10, 5000 juniors at £1, gives £95000. Bearing in mind not only did the Forest game have kids for a £1, but equally junior members could go free. Then add in all the junior associates from schools, clubs get in free with a free adult for every 10. The ratio of kids could even have been higher. Even by these rough estimates the extra ticket revenue could easily be wiped out by the extra stewarding. The only real profit could come from additionals spent within the stadium, Now this occurred for a one off and we would never see the average gate increase this amount as a rule if we applied this price structure across the season. I think allowing an extra 1500 at these prices would be representative over the whole season. So your average gate now (18000) comrises of 12,000 ST holders at £8 each (-£7), 1000 away fans at £10 each (-£14), 3000 adults at £10 (-£14)and 1000 juniors at £1 (-£11). The difference between that average gate and our current average gate is a whopping -£151,000 per game. You can apply your own figures and estimates to these as you please, but the actuality is no where near what you would imagine at first glance. David Luker is a clever guy and fully aware of the options to maximise revenue and crowd. But anyone thinking that the Forest pricing structure is the way to go needs adjusting with a cricket bat. If you want to actually see the effects of pricing structure and how that relates to attendance long term in the CCC, there are many clubs who have already trodden this path and no where near the one off increases of the Forest game.

I do not agree with this position, although I will concede that it will be more likely that we place ourselves into administration, but that will be driven by of actions from NU or Barclays. If the bank lose their faith in us, that is it, there and then, unless some other idiot is prepared to step in and fund the financial hole in this climate. And if you believe that NU will not be able to pull the plug, I can see some logic in that line. But equally if we default with the payments to NU, they can take possession of the stadium and make us pay those charges and more to enable us to play at St Mary’s. Those charges would then have to be met by the bank (or other source) to allow us to operate and that would be an additional burden I really doubt the bank would shoulder. I don’t know if the current interest on the stadium notes have changed, but I cannot see them being any less then previous years. To repay the interest (was 8.34%), capital reduction and oversee the stadium, I cannot see that as being any less than £50k per week. It then asks how much can we afford of that amount at the present and how that will change in the future if revenue drops even further. If we can keep sufficient numbers coming through the gates the worst that would happen would be similar to what we see at Leeds. If we cannot and the numbers continue to drop off alarmingly as we have started to see this season, we could easily be ground sharing with Eastleigh.

Your post is so contradictary though, you say that you are very supportive of what Wilde and Crouch are doing then go on to say we should be like Palace! The main difference is that Palace didn't go for some mental Dutch experiment but employed a manager in Warnock that knew how to get results in this league. Like a lot of Lowe apologists the kids excuse cannot be used here either given that Palace squad have younger players than ours! That is something you cannot blame Crouch for but that mental egotist you follow so blindly. Had we not ****ed up the wall what little money we had on loan and agent fees on Pulis, Gasmi, Smith, Forecast, Robertson and Gorre we just might of been able to recruit the experienced players you mention. There is no contradiction apart from me being very supportive of Wilde and Crouch. The overwhelming reason we our in this current predicament is because we are flat broke and our spending is governed by the bank. Take away those horrendous handicaps and a whole load of other options become available that are viable with some funds. We could so easily have been in a similar position to Crystal Palace, but that mountain of debt and the purse strings being held by the bank has removed that option from us. We ****ed it all against the wall and you never put up a squeak then. Now we are in this mess you have the stupidity to ignore all these restrictions and believe we should be competing equally? We would struggle financially against league 1 clubs to get the experienced pro's we require to get that good balance because of the financial pressures we are under. This all goes back directly to our debt and the bank controlling our finances. This is just not for this season but will extend for many seasons to come due to the magnitude of our problems. We will need to sell some of this talent to keep afloat and that will hardly come from selling on experienced pro's we pick up along the way. It is vital the the system allows us to keep all that young talent that can save us financially, even to the extent of the team being biased because of this policy. This is not only about the now but several years down the line.

When Wilde came in I was of a similar position as yourself. The only concerns I held were for continuity of the set up, but soon clear that was ok. When things went pear shaped and I realised what exactly happened, I looked back at how this had come about. One noticeable thing was the support from S4E and the outright lies being peddled in support of Wilde. I distinctly remember the lie regarding Burley being in full suppport of Wilde, subsequently laid bare by the letter to the share holders from Burley, SCW and Claus. I certainly don't count you among these liars, but even you would admit to giving succour to their cause. Then the issue over mythical investment? You can always argue what harm comes from supporting the dream? Well to me one of the most biggest underlying factors over the mess we got ourselves in, is because everyone had in the back of their mind was "don't worry, what ever happens we can always sell up to an investor". We even see this in the dying embers with Crouch hunkered down in the boardroom waiting for Fulthorpe to come riding in and save the day, having added to our wage bill. I am fully behind the plan implemented by Lowe and Wilde as it makes sense, equally Crouch can have his name attached to it and I would feel no different. Difficult decisions needed to be made and more importantly acted upon. So when others attack Lowe for being so nasty towards Skacel it leaves you thinking, surely anyone should be doing this and more if our future depends upon this? If you cannot separate the actions from the man and what are best for Saints, are you really a supporter of Saints or a hater of Lowe? When I see those that made all the excuses going for Wilde until siding with Lowe, then suddenly reincarnated as Judas himself. You really have to question what their priorities are? because Saints welfare does not appear the priority. I look through at all of the people having been involved with Saints at boardroom level over recent years and all are intelligent and successful in their own right. But then just look at the idiotic things they have done and said where Saints have been involved. I just cannot understand the actions they have taken with Saints, that they would never of considered in their own line of work. If Crouch assumed control again we should just have to hope where he takes us, but there is nothing in any of his statements or actions that give the glimmer of hope or rationality. I take your point regarding Crouch and the money he is prepared to put in, but I keep thinking will the real cost of such a change just wipe that out based upon his previous actions and statements. I have always said that the best possible outcome Saints is for all the major share holders to work together to bring that about. The offer of £2M is not to be sniffed at, but again looking at this practically lets take this a stage further. Crouch is perfectly happy to put that money in and lose it in the process, as we are led to believe by many. But if Lowe or Wilde is still there, that would not happen and he would be quite happy to see Saints go down the pan. You can certainly accuse Lowe for allowing this to happen, but you can definitively point out that Crouch is more concerned with his hate of Lowe than his love for Saints? And from Lowe and Wildes point of view, that the acceptance of Crouch could well cost you more than he will bring to the table from previous actions and statements. I look back at the Crystal Palace who were relegated with Saints. When you consider the vein of talent left from the youth is not dissimilar to Palace, then factor in the increased transfer fees we have received over Palace, there is no reason why we should not be in a similar position to Palace at the present time. Having that bit more money to be able to compete for those experienced pro's in this league to compliment these youngsters and I cannot see any reason why we should not be in a similar position. That's not an option because we ****ed all that up against the wall. Crouch has stated that he was fighting the exec's tooth and nail in this regard, but I can point to his own statements and actions which are diametrically opposed to this position.