up and away

Equally, if Nigel Pearson was still here, would he beat Leicester on that sort of run?

When McGoldrick plays in the hole his natural instinct is to get forward a lot more than others who play in that role. Can't comment on what happened today, but previously this has been the case.

We could have done a lot of things, but I still agree with Ron over this position. There was a time when we could have got in some half decent old pro's (when we had some money), but we were just left to pick from the best of the dregs. Most of these senior pro's just can't pass the ball well enough to fit in with the younger players. Then most of the younger players are not strong enough or have sufficient savy to deal with the hoofers in this league. Which ever way you go you will have great difficulty, at least with the youth players we have a chance of building if it scrapes through. When you look at al those players you have mentioned, with the exception of possibly one, I doubt there would be any difference in their salaries combined compared to Saga. My personal choice would have been Pearson as I have stated consistently from the beginning, equally I am under no illusion that he could have fared any better, again something I stated from the beginning.

As ineffective as I think Saga is, he may well be our only chance and can somehow find that form he showed when he first arrived. Then would we need to sell other players to accommodate his salary? With Surman and Lallana's value going down by the second, I am beginning to doubt if they can cover it. Personally I don't think Saga will be any improvement, but we may as well try and find out.

I would not disagree with any of that. Throughout all of these recent problems we all know there has been only one answer, for everyone to work together for the good of Saints. But equally we all know this will never happen and we will be able to look back on this with greater clarity when we have gone to the wall. We have only one slim chance and that is the program Lowe has embarked upon, financial parity and to utilise the only assets we have, the youth players. The recent gate against Forest showed that we can get fans through the door, but it gets more difficult when you heap misery into their laps as we did with that game. We need luck on the field to promote fans getting through the gates, our only slim help of salvation.

If that's true then it's really sad that an experienced pro cannot speak out when things are obviously shiite. wtf has that got to do with the price of fish? We have all seen him play and we all hoped he would have been a lot better than what has been served up. I am sure he is not happy at the amount of games he is getting, but these things happen. Or are you trying to say he should have started a lot more often?

If Chorley chucked those coins in the same manner that journalist hurled his shoes at Bush I wouldn't blame Lowe for wanting our own Che Guava banged up. Dear departing George had to duck out of the way pretty sharpish. Pendantry corner - Che Guava is a intentional gag. I am fully aware that the real name of South American icon plastered on under graduate bedroom walls worldwide is Fray Bentos. The act of throwing the copper on the table gets him thrown out of the AGM. The subsequent crying about being man handled, plus the fact it should have been Wilde in receipt of his savings, deserves the rest of the ban for being such a thwat.

Again the usual ******. If Wilde and Lowe state that Pearson was more expensive it would be deceiving shareholders, something Lowe would not do. Equally as Pearson's contract was just running out, you have no idea what amount he wanted to sign a new contract:rolleyes: Not only Lowe went Dutch, but equally Wilde. So there must have been something in that decision making process that led them in that direction. You stop short in proposing Crouch as our saviour, but in reality that imbecile is the only alternative. It's amazing that Crouch managed to find his voice for this AGM, whereas all those points he was so anti against previously never got a mutter. The measures that Lowe has taken is in line with the financial position we find ourselves in and requires being done, rather than implying and doing fook all because the take over fairy is whispering in his direction. So basically you are saying that Jan was selected as a footballing decision which you would have wanted anyway? If Lowe has lied that is a different affair, but his record on these matters are far better than yours. Just with last time when you started leaking these ****** rumours and whispers in support of Wilde, look where that got us. You got it so wrong last time in tripping over yourself to get rid of Lowe and you think you are any position to give direction again? As for the division being created, it is obvious from the AGM what direction this is coming from. As has always been the case with every boardroom event we have had in recent time, the only effective route has been for all to work together.

Nobody is stating the finances last year would good - it's the single point every Saints fan agrees on!! Unfortunately the club's debt - overdraft at the bank - has grown this year, which indicates the club finances are actually worse than last year! Without doubt our debt has increased considerably, but without the financial actions that have been taken, we would be far worse off. When you implement these actions as with trains, things don't come to a halt immediately. Looking back over these actions, what more could be done? I can't fault Lowe for these actions and actually having the balls to make them, knowing full well the repercussions. One thing that becomes very clear from reading the transcript of the AGM, there is a very divisive element within the club. We saw exactly the same behaviour when Lowe was not even at the club and you have to ask yourself do these people really have the good of Saints at heart, because their actions are not indicating anything like that. I cold not imagine for one minute Wilde siding with Lowe, but the more I see of events like the AGM, it make things a lot clearer.

Nothing to get worked up about, more misplaced than anything. Just does not translate to me, could not even bother to be silver but copper. With his intended target not at the AGM, he would have been better off posting the coins to Wilde. That said, first in a long time he has added to St Marys coffers.

Listen to it, the brain cell behind the get rid of Hiley campaign. It was bad enough when you were in full support of Wilde, but that seems to have disappeared for some reason. After all this ****** backed by Crouch about this massive investment coming into the club, you spot a fiver at the back of the stands and it's all rolling again, suitably downgraded as per the previous spectacular ratio.

At best that is re-writing history - I think you need to look closer at Wilde. By the time Crouch came in the damage had been done. Your point is valid. But equally Crouch is in there up to his pikey arse. The sheer stupidity and divisiveness of the idiot is one of the main reasons where we are now. All that hedgehog muncher had to do was use his head and keep people onside. But all we saw was a bull in a china shop with the one brain cell flickering on and off.

Crouch would buy Lowe's and/or Wilde's shares in an instant. The problem is they will not sale. I also understand he is willing to put new money into the Club (2million has been mentioned in various circles), but this has been turned down. Just heard from a friend that it has been the most vociferous and ugly AGM he has ever attended (I wonder if anyone from Barclays is there). With Lowe at the helm, I struggle to see how the Club will escape from it's current circle of decline. What a load of ******. When Crouch was giving it the Michael and Rupert routine he was spouting they agreed a fair price for their shares? All of a sudden that no longer exists. As for mentioning £2M under your breath at the back of the stands, what's happened to all those 10's of millions to blow your socks off? Going by the previous ratio, it's just enough for a pie and a pint.

Trust me mate, I'm right. In any case, your quoted passage even goes to show that. "the total voting rights of the members who vote" It's not complicated. It must be far too complicated for yourself, otherwise I cannot see any way in which you construe that as only 75% of votes that attend a meeting. On your basis, events could easily conspire that only 4% of the total eligible vote attend, requiring only 3% to forward a special resolution. The sentence is categoric, it requires 75% of the eligible vote.

Theoretically for me this is not about Lowe, but the actions that require taking. Then when you come to someone actually having the balls to do what is right for the club, irrespective of popular opinion, then Lowe stands out to me in this respect. You can argue the point regarding JP and Pearson and I can readily see both sides of the arguement. But I never felt Pearson would have been any better than the position we are seeing now. I said when Pearson was still here that if we managed to avoid relegation it would be a miracle, considering all the players he would lose and what was achieved previously. The point about Skacel and Sten John are twofold. We have to put pressure on them to get them off the wage bill and JP took a deliberate decision at the beginning to use only players he knew would be starting the season. Once the window has closed he has shown no problem in using these players. Again you can argue the pro's and cons of each side, but I have no real problem with these decisions as they all fit in with a plan to try and extricate us from the financial nightmare that is now upon us. The severe financial pressures that we are now under are dictating courses of action which would not normally be considered sound. Taking these financial pressures into consideration I believe we are doing the correct action. Whether we are successful or not is highly debateable and it would not surprise me to see us fold before the end of the season, but I want someone to take these hard actions in an attempt to safeguard our future.

75% refers to the proportion of votes cast. It doesn't matter if most shareholders don't bother voting. No, 75% refers to total voting rights eligible to vote. (5) A resolution passed on a poll taken at a meeting is passed by a majority of not less than 75% if it is passed by members representing not less than 75% of the total voting rights of the members who (being entitled to do so) vote in person or by proxy on the resolution.

Maybe for next season, where would the money come from to compensate season ticket holders? Games should be £15 for everybody regardless of status or age IMHO, better to sell out than play in a half empty stadium. It just does not work that way. When you are on a restricted budget you target specific games at specific pricing. Just because you may get a sell out at a particular game does not mean that would replicate for several others in succession at the same pricing structure. Equally if we start winning consistently fans will find the money even at the current price structure. Fans would be prepared to take the financial cuts elsewhere if the team and results could generate that passion. But when you are not doing so well, many would pay just for the pain to go away, let alone not attending. David Luker is a smart guy and I am sure they will increase the frequency of the cheapies to see if it has legs in the long run. We have to maximise revenue from gate receipts and we have already seen from the significant lowering of season ticket pricing, that gate revenue was hit significantly.

There are advantages to delisting as everyone has pointed out, it is just the practicalities of the exercise that stands in it's way. It's going to cost to delist (£0.5M? maybe £0.75M) and you have to get 75% of share holders to vote for it. I don't believe we have ever had that high a turn out vote since the plc was first formed. It's not that many share holders would be against the change. it's actually getting them to cast that vote in that direction. I could easily see money being spent with no end result because share holders can't be bothered to vote. It's not going to effect Lowe or other share holders as basically things will remain as they currently are. The big thing that will be given up is the openess of our accounts at regular intervals, or unless we intend to go to the market again to obtain funding (and yes snowballs and hell come to mind as that being viable again).

I just cannot see that any of the players have justified these sort of fees. Lallana and Surman have the potential to easily be £5M players or more. Neither have the pace you look for in the Premier and although both are very good players, they have not even dominated in their respective playing positions. Kelvin has had a very good season, but still no where near Premier class and having crosses as your main weakness in this league is going to slow down buyers. Kelvin is a no no for the Premier and the other two are an unknown risk, on that basis I would estimate (bearing the current climate) Davis £0.5M Surman £1.75M Lallana £1.75M If we can hold onto them it's more than possible that value will go up, it's being able to afford tha option that is the problem.

Financially we must be about the worse off in the CCC, because of the debt we have accumulated and our stadium payments. Sheffield Wednesday are the closest to us in that respect, but no where near as ham strung and with average gates several thousand higher.

What am I making up that didn't exist? Look, stop wriggling. I was responding to the following part of a post by you. I have never said that I wanted all of these players to go, in fact the opposite with certain players. But it does not worry a flying jump what my preferences are, it is what Jan would want that is relevant in this matter. You are manufacturing points that do not exist. Which to my mind seems to be inviting a comparison between how Pearson did against how Poortvliet has fared this season within the same time span. If you don't want the debate, then don't make the conjecture that Pearson would not have been better than Poortvliet. And how disingenous to suggest that the highest scorer of the season be removed to help your argument. You might as well suggest that Leicester's current position at the top of League 1 under Pearson might look a lot different without the 17 league goals scored by Matt Fryatt so far. Again, I never said that Pearson or Poortvliet was the better, but that it was not possible to differentiate between the two, with such a vast difference in resources made available to one but not the other. And what is the point of you referencing Fryatt? Unless you are underlining the point regarding Stern John. Stern John was available regularly to Pearson but not Poortvliet, so you have a direct comparison. Take Stern John away and it's probably relegation, allow Poortvliet to use Stern John and it's more than likely we would have scored more goals and subsequently some more points. Fryatt does not even come on the radar except in your "any logic if it's against Lowe", what a total fool.

You can't have it both ways. Make up your mind. Were they an asset or a liability? Don't try and make things up that do not exist. There are certain players there that I would love to retain, but the important point would be the players Jan would like to keep. If you gave him that option I am sure there would several that he would keep if free from the finanacial pressures. But if you want a definitive answer, just remove Stern John from Pearsons squad and see where we finish then. And that is only one player from a whole host of others Pearson employed. Not that I do not appreciate Pearson, but you are not comparing apples with apples.

Again, just look at the statistics between the two of them. They prove that Pearson's record was better than Poortvliet's. Or are you and Village Saint both totally oblivious to the truth? Then factor in that this season you would not have had the options of Saga, John, J Wright, Licka, Idiakez, Viafara. Hammil, Lucketti, R Wright. What a total muppet.

The answer is, any one but...... Apparently there are hundreds out there waiting that have better credentials than Lowe. Weve seen a few of them already in the last couple of years. I have been wanting these actions we now see for the last two years, it does not worry who is making them, they just have to have been made. The further and further we have slipped down the financial pole, the more and more draconian the remedial measures required. Done a lot earlier and we could of afforded the utopian blend of correct senior and youth players for many years into the future. I look at the set up that has been installed and cannot really fault what has been done considering the position we are in. The experience of Hockaday and Henderson have been used to find players along with Prost's contacts. When we come to the question of coach I can easily see that being argued either way and again wonder if Prost may have had some input? Irrespective of Pearsons + points, is coaching by continuously screaming going to get the best out of these youngsters? And the youngsters would not be playing the same system as they have been playing all their formative years. Against that you can acknowledge that Pearson would be more at home with the rigours of the CCC, but no way from last season can you say he would have been any better. Lowe I believe is now on less than Lawries bar bill, just exactly who can you go out and get to fill all the criteria required on that sort of money? Cowen was honest enough to admit he did not have the skill sets to pull the job off, which really gives a good indication of the prospects finding a more suitable replacement. He's even managed to keep his head down and mouth shut this time, until spotted through 3 closed windows and via a reflection to set the muppets off. I am glad he is here and taking the actions he is, that does not mean I would not accept some idiot with sufficient money (even far less as time goes on) in an instant.

The chairman is seen once in god knows how long talking to the coach by the side of the pitch before an away match. What happens, the muppets go into overdrive. Where exactly is the logic here? Similarly when McGoldricks comments were totally blown out of proportion and events repositioned by the muppet pack. The first time Lowe appeared at Staplewood this season was to explain to the players what the picture was in relation to the current financial situation. All of a sudden he is no longer at Staplewood, but in the changing rooms giving the team talk.