up and away

What a total muppet. Why do you think Berkovic left? because we had no option to buy him at the end of his trial period. Great having a trial period, but what is the use of it if he can walk after being a total success? As for the 6-3 win against ManU, you seem to have completely forgotten the 7-1 loss to Everton, but I expect that one was solely down to Lowe. That same season we escaped relegation on the last day, not because of anything we had done as I think we lost that day, but others failure to win. Also in that year the youth policy was completely raised to the ground and had to be built up again. If any idiot had to go and select facts to prove a point, you could not have chosen a worse example and just makes the whole thing more laughable than serious.

I would agree with all of that, but equally I have to concede that we do have a big problem in scoring goals. If we can afford to use him, I cannot argue with giving a decent run and seeing how it goes. McG is a work in progress and fully understand fans frustrations with him, but there are very good prospects and with sufficient arse kicks and the proverbial penny slotting into place, could be all that we wanted him to be. As for Saga being misunderstood I think that is definitely true, from the teams he has played for and how tf he earns so much.

And I take it you also believed Jermaine Defoe when he said today that "Portsmouth didn't really want me". Unbelivable the lengths at which dumb football fans will lap up any old fanny doled out by a football player making his excuses for switching clubs for perfectly understandable financial (Watford offered more money) and personal (managed by the manager who had him as captain of the Chelsea youth team) reasons. Seriously, there was nothing going to stop Jack Cork going to Watford. Get the f u ck over it. And if anyone had bothered to read through what Cork actually said it was obviously about money. Just throw in the fact that Jan stated the reason was down to money and you have the full set. When the player is stating about all the good friends he made in Southampton, that he enjoyed it down here and we wanted to keep him, then to follow that up with Watford wanted me more. It was either about getting a / more bonus or getting his knob polished. But when you a firing off on alternative agendas, it does not really come into the thinking. Cork will always be a loss because he was a good player. The question will come down to what effective use have we made of the money available to us? Only time will tell on that one, but it could be a double whammy because he has gone to Watford.

Andrew Davies money recouped....Sorry forgot big wedge of that was for young Pulis....£300,000 You can correct me if you want...Now is that good business or is Pulis about to save us....Yes other clubs wanted Davies but then again he does not play at mo.. Maybe Pulis will not play until Davies does....Anyway no use me spouting...you know everything so I am sure you will put me right. Davies has played what? 45 minutes since leaving us for Stoke? Just exactly how lucky were we in getting Davies off our books and being lumbered with those costs for the rest of this season even? You obviously think that was an acceptable risk, even with the precarious position we were in financially? But when you take such action at a time when you knew exactly how bad our financial position was, lumbering us with one of the most expensive wage additions in recent times, you don't feel this to be far more stupid than everything that has brought us to this point. We have all seen the inability to move on these high earners and it is with exceeding good luck that we still not have him with us now! If you have any regard for the financial mess we were in, you do not compound that problem and then try to imply that you were against the whole concept from the beginning?

He has my every sympathy, being one of a number on the board and only having one vote. Generally the MD and Chairman can easily push through decisions if they bullsh !t enough. It's rare to find an FD with the strength of character to stand up to a determined MD. I think the cashflows presented relied heavily on an investment from Wilde, et al... The beancounter can only rely in the information he receives. If it includes the promise of investment, then I can understand why he didn't foresee the cash crisis... I am not so sure he should have every sympathy, equally along with the rest of them that followed blindly. You see the likes of Dave Jones on many boards, a bean counter who is not a driving force in any particular direction, but with their vote aligned to the board of the day. No one has identified any figures being incorrect, so he is doing his job correctly from that point of view. But if you go along with that and vote in support, you are culpable to the extent of that single vote. When you are selling off £10M's and £10M's of the family silver until the cupboard is bare, even a 5 year old should be able to figure out the consequences. More galling to me is out burst by Crouch at the recent AGM, that he has nothing to do with the state of the finances. If you provide loans to get a player on our books, how can you not be seen as complicit in this financial mess when these loans have to be repaid? With one of the most expensive, Andrew Davies being signed in Jan 2008. So who exactly was in charge at this time?

I think he has to actually play? He is allowed to be registered with 3 clubs in one season, but only allowed to play for 2. If he is a substitute and does not get on the pitch, I don't believe that counts, because they use the term fielded for anyone who has deemed to have played. I am surprised, as by looking at the wages for various players given out by the Echo, that must be their basic wage with a significant further portion coming from bonus. Unless of course those figures are incorrect or we have come to an agreement regarding those bonus payments? Unless someone else is sold to bring in revenue, I cannot understand the change in policy for allowing him to play. Nothing else has changed financially, so unless we have not had a smidgen of interest from other clubs, it would go against everything that has gone before for this to happen. Unless he is going back to Aalborg, as that would not be breaking any regulations. That said, we are desperate for someone to put the ball in the back of the net and can only hope we get lucky as when he first arrived at the club.

Mate don't get sucked in by the spin, Lowe signed BWP & Rasiak!!!! Also just one other small point, the % of income against players wages were naturaly going up anyway as the turnover went from £23.3m down to £14.9m so even with out the extra signings the existing contracts would of taken a larger %. Please note: That by no means exucesses The Euell deal!!! Lowe exercised the buy option on Rasiak, but he only agreed a 1-year loan of BWP. When Lowe left we only had half a team with no other big earners having been signed. The intention was to get the wage bill down to around 50% of income (without allowing for the final parachute payment), so that adjustments that had to be made would not be major and easily within our reach come the end of the season. Lowe had just gone through the biggest player cull seen at Saints to get the finances in order, he was not going to put that in jeopardy by immediately starting another spending spree when adjustments would soon have to be made for the loss of the parachute payments. We could still have had a good tilt at promotion that season with a reduced squad and loans financed by the parachute for that season, without financially handicapping us for the future. Crouch’s opposition to the Euell signing in no way can be used as proof of wanting to get the finances in order, only one of personal opinion regarding the player. Why, because of the subsequent signing of Andrew Davies, which we all know Crouch was fully behind, even to the extent of helping the deal with a loan, some months after we had signed Euell. So if you are concerned about the financial stability of the club, you don’t say cut back one minute, then months later load an even bigger cost onto the finances by bringing in an even more expensive player.

I take your point, but you cannot have missed there is a large percentage of posters tying every sneeze back to Lowe and how he has engineered this current predicament. This in itself is not an issue until you tie it in with your second part, what should we be doing? I have no problem accepting that what we should be doing is exactly what Lowe has done since his return. You can argue the pro’s and con’s regarding Pearson and JP, but given the enormity of the financial problems we faced, no one can categorically say what would have been the best. We have no options left open to us and whether it is Lowe or anyone else implementing these measures, I am fully behind them as it is the only thing that makes sense and just gives us that 1/100 chance of getting out of the mess. Typical is the nasty Lowe trying to do everything to force Skacel out of the club. If our financial survival depends upon getting rid of these high earners, then everything must be done in attempt to bring that about. Look at the actions that require taking and forget about the person implementing those actions. But I feel it will only be once we find ourselves in administration will the penny hit home. Even then I can see the very same posters blaming Lowe for not doing more and personally kicking Skacel’s arse up the road to Ipswich. Over the last few years when I found I had been conned by Michael Wilde, I have had one consistent agenda. Forget about the dreams of investment and just live in the now without ****ing all the family silver against the wall (yeah close to £40M). Someone for Christ’s sake make the right decisions no matter how unpopular they are. The only person who has had the balls to do it is Lowe. I don’t really care which of them would actually do it, just that it was done. We are at the point now where I do not believe it matters anymore and if we were to escape administration and stay in the CCC it would truly be a miracle. I am even wondering if we are not far from the point to accept administration this season so we can go into League 1 without the point’s deduction. Even grateful that these youngsters have gained invaluable experience, to avoid us slipping straight through League 1. The issue I have with this is not that these people were fooled by that thwat tommac, but what damage was caused by continuing with this belief and sticking all your eggs into this one basket, when alarm bells were ringing at every corner. Even to Crouch's final days this was being extended to Fulthorpe and still blindly going along the same road. To me this reliance upon the mythical investment explains a lot of the cavalair attitude as to why we ****ed everything against the wall and why we are in our current predicament. Because don't worry, there will always be someone willing to buy the club and get us out of the mess. They are all intelligent people and how could they go so long in continuing with this make believe, even to the extent of Crouch at the recent AGM. If any of them had looked closely at the communications between the Echo and Allen it would have shook them out of their boots. But no one bothered because the ramifications of what that truth meant would have seen everything disappear in an instance. The only reason I can put this down to intelligent people in other fields, because they are fans?

During any of this time, Crouch could have gone to Lowe and expressed his concerns about the finances and the two of them could have forced change to remedy the finances. This never happened and there is more evidence of Crouch adding to the fire than trying to put it out. We keep hearing from sources that Crouch was against the signing of Euell, which I remember hearing at the time. Equally I heard from the same sources about how good various other signings like Davies and Saga would be. To highlight one player then to pretend you were against the whole program is rich indeed. Especially when you further increase that problem when you have total control. The reference to Dave Jones is particularly convenient. Wiseman would have been allowed full access to the accounts, but it was as clear as day that the only way we were being kept afloat was by selling off the family silver for our golden lotto win of the Premier. If any of these idiots are saying they could not see this coming over such a long period, they should not be trusted in any shape or form. If Jones sided with the execs and used his own vote in support then he surely is culpable from that point of view. But even after the exec's left, the madness still continued. Jones is a very convenient scapegoat who could have very easily have been removed at the same time of the exec's. Jones has some explaining over his personal voting, but if the rest of the idiots are saying they did not understand what was happening, they deserve to be shot or set in a time loop running round the south of France for mythical investment. You can say what harm was Mary Corbett doing by chasing after imaginary investment, but then cast your mind back to what was happening at the time. Everyone was so sure investment would come, that extended into the belief that what ever happened financially would all be all right because Paul Allen would sort us out. A legacy Crouch continued until his final days hunkered down in the bunker. This despite all the written and direct verbal denials from the man and his company. Even Richard Chorley would not give it the time of day after seeing the correspondence between the Echo and Allen. You have to wonder when you compare the distance to the Echo office and the south of France, exactly what form of idiocy befalls you just by being a fan? The exec's clearly stated before the AGM that got rid of them, "the cupboard was bare, we've sold off all the family silver and we have to start getting rid of players to survive" Then look back to Crouch's riposte that things were no where near as bad as that and we could continue for a long time to come. Before embarking upon another influx of loans and high salaries just to compound our financial situation. Then when we come to the end of that season, what exactly was Crouch's master plan? Just to sit there, doing nothing and waiting on Fulthorpe? We heard subsequently that Crouch could have taken the cost cutting measures of the stadium etc and had looked at it. But nothing was done with a small exception, best to leave those unpopular decisions to Lowe so he can take that flak. Players that were never going to be sold, now had to go out on loan. And what are we now expected to believe, it was nothing to do with me and I was against it all the time? Irrespective that statements and actions are in direct opposition to this stance.

You've hit the nail on the head. Wilde appointed the Execs and the players were signed under Wildes Execs. Crouch is the one who loaned Rasiak etc out to reduce the wage bill. What! Crouch was panning the execs for trying to make any savings, you can read it for yourself here. This pikey has been up to his neck in it since the beginning. Surprising he has never commented before the last AGM, had plenty of opportunity, but not a squeak. "I am gutted it has come to this. I have spent the last nine months working tirelessly for this club representing the fans, but I have been a thorn in their (the executive board members) side. "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."

But he didn't sell him so the intelligent thing to have done would have been to play him as he's going to get paid anyway. It would appear, like your pin up Rupert, that you're not too clever. Not to clever? you are extending this to new limits unless we have a new youth player by the name of Skacel that has been playing at LB? As soon as the windows were all closed and we could not even get him out on loan, then it would obviously make sense to use the guy as long as his fitness and performances dictate. Unless I have been misreading the team sheets, that is exactly what has happened.

If you cannot figure out by now the depth of our financial problems by now, is there really any point no matter who comes out and paints everything as black as the ace of spades? Skacel is still here because he would not take a massive pay cut to go to Ipswich, which all of a sudden has given him an uber fan status amongst the players? More likely Skacels salary is nigh on the equivalent of all the youth players he plays alongside and you are holding this muppet out to be a shining example? As for the other idiots muttering that Lowe has no business in trying to force Skacel out, that is exactly what the chairman should be doing when we are in this predicament. No wonder "head up his arse, and do FA Crouch" is so popuplar with the idiots on here.

Let's all keep them and go into administration then? Of course the club should be doing everything they possibly can to get rid of them, rather than that alternative. Let's go out and find some cheap experienced pro's to go along with the youth players then. But they are as thick on the ground as hens teeth, even then we would get outbid by a League 1 side. Very easy to come up with a cure outside of reality, maybe if you had complained a bit more when we were ****ing all this against the wall, it would have made some difference.

God almighty. WE have the whole of London burning and you are arguing whether it was started in a chip pan or a cigarette! We have known since the start of the season we cannot afford Saga, nothing has improved in fact the opposite, so why exactly do you believe anything will be different? Jan would obviously like the opportunity to try him out and the bank want him sold, again nothing new. Just to avoid you any more drama and confusion the club will be looking to sell / loan Saga onto another club. If we have no interest from abroad or any one in England looking to buy him, we may get lucky and even be able to use him before the window ends. The bank will have a big influence in this decision and we will just have to hope we are lucky whatever the outcome. We are no longer masters of our own destiny, we forfeited that option when we ****ed everything against the wall, but that did not fit your agenda. Just remind me what your opinion at the time was over the OS putting out the rebuff to agreeing to take a hit on the Walcott deal to get us out of the mire? I have heard you state several times that Crouch did not specifically say we had not been looking at doing a deal. Bearing in mind your recent attempts to clear up OS indiscretions, I would have imagined you would have filled your boots on this one? but not a whimper, just Crouch never really said that! http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/news/?page_id=9816 Saints have knocked back reports that they have approached Arsenal to try and to reach an early cash settlement on the Theo Walcott deal in order to head off administration. The club have strongly denied suggestions in a national newspaper that they have exceeded their overdraft limit and are under pressure from the bank. Chairman Leon Crouch said: "There is a lot we would like to say in response to this story but unfortunately we have been placed in an offer period by the Stock Exchange who insist that we remain in it and whose rules therefore prevent us from talking about financial matters. "What we can say is that Barclays continue to be supportive and we have a positive relationship with them. "Like all clubs we have an overdraft facility but we have certainly not exceeded our limit despite this kind of scaremongering which has many inaccuracies and which does the club no good at all."

Although you allude to it later in your post, I have to say I do think you are rather missing the point with your analysis. With the exception of one or two dreamers, I think the vast majority of Saints fans are aware that we are up shi87t creek with regards finances and how our financial problems have a massive impact on what we can and cannot do. The financial issues certainly constrain what we would like to do, BUT they do not mean that we have not had choices or not had different strategies that we could have followed. Whilst there may have been a limit on the number of different routes we could have taken, there is no way that this was the only possible path that we could have followed. And the single biggest decision that we have made was the decision that has the biggest single impact on any football team, notably the decision to sack Pearson and go with a total non entity in Poortvliet. This decision had minimal (if any) reference to our finances. Pearson was not on mega wages, Pearson worked with youngsters in the past and Pearson was open about having to lose the big stars and having to play more of the youngsters in the future. That decision was not forced upon Lowe due to financial implications, that was a decision that he made for footballing reasons, and it is a decision that is costing us on and off the pitch. On the pitch performances are hitting us in the league table as we sit in the bottom two and show no sign of improving. 13 new faces have come in which indicate there is some flexibility within the squad, it's just a shame that the few resources we had have not been utilised wisely at this crucial time. Poor performances (notably at home) are also hitting us off the pitch as attendances slump. An extra 1,000 bums on seats for each game equates to something like half a million over a season. Rather than continually cutting costs, maybe we should also be considering growing revenue! So whilst money plays a big part in what strategies we can or cannot pursue, the lack of it does not exonerate the poor decisions relating to the recruitment of a new manager and the subsequent signings, tactics and performances under him. Again missing the point, the lack of finances has a far greater effect than you are portraying. I agree fully with the point regarding Pearson, we could have afforded him and yet we took a punt with a Dutchman with little experience in this league. But what would Pearson exactly have had available to him? Even Jermaine Wright turned down the sort of money we were offering and our problems with getting in a decent freebie or experienced loan player for the money we are offering is clear. So basically because of this financial mess we are forced to go down the route with the youth players. When you consider how much the rug has been pulled from beneath Jan because of the worsening financial picture since he arrived, you really wonder how many other managers would have stood up to that pressure? even Pearson. We clearly heard from one experienced wannabe in Basset that he would have just ignored the chairman once he got the job and just go his own way, so that could easily have influenced the decision. It seemed clear from the begining that we would not be shifting many of the high earners on a fee because of their very high salaries, evident fro Skacel and Saga. Then compound that with lower gates and the problem becomes nigh on impossible. Although my personal pick would have gone to Pearson, there is nothing from his performances to demonstrate that he would fare any better, with all the players and loans removed from his selection. Just add a couple of decent experienced pro's to Jans team and it is not difficult to see we could be doing far better. What we have seen from Jan football wise with the youngsters has been impressive, but not good enough because of inexperience in the defence and being physically over powered. We could have overcome that problem with money and had a good season, but we don't have that money and have to scrape through the best we can. It's very simple to state that we can go out and get some old pro for peanuts, but to find one of any use and not get outbid salary wise by a League 1 side is another matter. THIS IS ALL ABOUT FINANCE!

I think you have to separate McMenemy the manager and what has followed. Relevant points regarding taking us down in his first season and the subsequent departure to Sunderland, but overall his effect as manager at Saints has been immense, even ahead of Ted in that respect in my book. I cannot praise the guy enough for everything he did during that period, even with those negative aspects. But some of his traits which made him a success as a manager make him an absolute nightmare for anyone who has had to work with him since. I don't know anyone (including ex players) that had to subsequently work alongside / under him who have a good word to say for him. The bully, the ego which aided him as a manager has such a destructive influence in subequent positions, that it is just not worth the bother. Either have him in charge of the whole lot or no where near any of it. Most of the bitterness and animosity generates from this direction and I would be more than happy if he had nothing to do with our club again.

You really do talk some rubbish. In the line up, I'd have you just behind Sundance and slightly ahead of SOG. You're making a rather enormous leap to go from suggesting we should be looking to play our best players to then claim I'm suggesting he is Drogbaesque. But then again, if it makes you happy, you keep making things up. After, it's not stopped ou in the past with the drivel you usually come out with. Well what is all the fuss about? In the grand scheme of things this does not even get to molehill status Once again, let's phone Drama Queens Are Us I've never suggested it was Lowe's fault, nor did I view it as crime of the century. But as befire if you want to make things up then you just carry right on Please, don’t come over all shy and innocent. Even when the opposite is true you still manage the “no smoke without fire” routine. Do you seriously believe you can be anywhere near impartial where Lowe is concerned? Cast your mind back to all that ****** you were putting out in support of Wilde, only to suddenly start eating your tail when he sided with Lowe. Without Lowe you have no point of existence, one valid argument for getting rid of him though. Remote?, a 1% improvement?, an outside chance?, of course it's all of them. But given the sums involved, given the situation we find ourselves in and given we never looked like scoring, I would have thought it would have been worth a shout having him in the squad. You have no idea if it would be an improvement, equally I have no idea it would be worse. If we need to get him off our books he will not be played until the window is over if that blocks a move. Whether that is the case or not will have to be seen. But in the grand scheme of things this season, Saga being available for a cup match is a non-entity. If we can get to use him, all well and good, but this cup game is nowhere near a priority. As was proved at the time, the CV put up on the OS was full of holes. Now if you want to believe it, or include it in your little world of made up stuff and make beilieve then that's entirely up to you. Who do you think put that up on the OS in case you did not know? It was not Lowe or Wilde but some other lackey eager to please. So it was not 100%, where exactly in the scale of things does that fit, again not able to make molehill status. But what do we get? some muppet claiming the biggest hidden agenda since Watergate, get real FFS.

Dear Mr 50% & 75% man:rolleyes:, Nothing in football is guaranteed, but very often the better the calibre of players you put out, the better the results they are likely to produce. We go in to the game as massive underdogs, without much of a chance, but at the same time we do have a chance. Given the weakness of our defence, I'm guessing we will need to score to earn a draw and given our lack of goals scored, I would have thought it would have made sense to have a talented striker like Saga somewhere in the squad. You carry on waffling away Mr dinlo, Regards Dumb Pahars (Feel free to regale us with your tales of the 75% voting process at EGM & AGM's:smt044:smt044) All of a sudden Saga takes on Drogba like credentials because he is not available to play. Impervious to the fact that he did not put a dent in ManU on 2 recent encounters, you must think it 3rd time lucky with a team that has never even played in the Champions League? More to the point is your myopic view that you can hang this round Lowe's neck as the crime of the century. I am sure if they held your god like view of Saga that he would be available. Maybe others on the football side do not share your view, or that if we were to play Saga, we could not off load him to another club? Either way, Saga missing this game cannot be factored in as anything other than having a remote possibility of improving our situation. Just as with your assertions with Poortvliets c.v. on the OS, reality and common sense just take second place to your misguided idiocy, irrespective of who it harms.

There is dumb and there is dumb. You seriously believe that Saga is the difference between us getting a replay? Whereas in 2 recent games against ManU he had no effect?

Either way, what is the point for a one off cup game. Exactly what significance will this have? If we can afford him we can have him ready for the important games, if we can't afford him we shall just have to wait until no one else wants him.

What! have you been growing mushrooms for the last year? Apart from those clubs that have gone through administration and are hanging on by their finger nails, I can't think of a club with a more precarious foothold on the financial slide than ourselves. Whether or not the rumour is true, there is absolutely no doubt about the mess we are in.

I would imagine we will get less chances against ManU than Aalborg did in their 2 CL games, so you reckon it will be easier 3rd time round for Saga? If Saints have not got him registered in time, I would guess it's more to do with the 3 club rule as mentioned earlier. Even so, this game is just a one off money spinner and has no real impact on our season.

Agree with your sentiments about Illingsworth completely. Anything he may have to offer is compromised by his willingness to cosy up to the very people who he suggests are the problem. And I found the Echo article truly fascinating. Its seems the Echo has woken up, is more in tune with the fan base and has turned on Lowe. It is amusing that the Echo quote Forest as the guiding light, as a few years earlier they were not even in the same financial plight as ourselves and off they went into league 1. Illingsworth's message is very simple, there is no knight on a white horse, our only hope is ourselves. If we don't care and are more interested in petty squabbles, no one else can be expected to care.

I agree, we have very few options left and if Saga is staying should be given an extended run. But the big problem we have is a front man and Saga is not that man, better playing off the front man. Whether he will make much difference is anyone's opinion, but he must be tried if he is to stay.

Of everyone out there privy to inside information over the years, I feel Nick has been the most balanced and responsible of anyone. Just look back over his analysis and it has been pretty much spot on. The one thing I am not so sure about is fans on the board and believe that is one of the major factors in where we are now. I am sure there are fans that can still function rationally when elevated to this position, but have seen no evidence from any that have graced the board room so far. Again the message has to be, do what is best for Saints instead of getting embroiled in petty squabbles.