up and away

I agree with the above. I often wonder at many of the posts on here, is it just blind dislike/hatred of one person that drives them? The actions taken by Lowe since his return has been exactly what has been required. I cannot fault the current steps being taken considering the financial mess we are in. Anyone coming in needed to go down the same road and I would be happy if anyone was taking this same road. To me this is not about Lowe but the actions and directions that need to be taken. Where Lowe does feature strongly in my selection, is I cannot believe / trust that the others that have fronted up would actually be prepared to take such unpopular measures.

They could also afford the right experienced pro's to go along with those youngsters. We even had that option at one time before it all got ****ed up against the wall.

I've read this from a lot of posters on here but I can't remember one of them ever explaining why? Lowe is in power because Wilde had a panic attack, it is not because of his remarkable business recovery skills. Everything that has been done since Lowe has returned is what is required for the mess we are in. These decisions needed to be made and more importantly acted upon. I watched Crouch bury his head in the sand long enough waiting for a blow job from the take over fairy. That's why Wilde had that remarkable turn around because he realised there was absolutely no hope unless he acted. Bearing in mind Wilde's previous position, things had to be really, really bad for that step to be made. It does not worry who does the job, as long as they make the best of what we have at that particular time. It is the decisions and actions that are important and this time round is exactly what is required if we are to have any chance of getting out of this mess. If Crouch were making these decisions and actions I would be equally supportive, but all his eggs have been tucked up with the take over fairy.

Go back to the end of last season and you you will see a several posters believing we were favourites for relegation this season. That was when it was still assumed Pearson would be here. There is nothing from last season to indicate we should be doing any better than we are now, when you take into account the financial adjustments we have had to make. What I have seen this season has given me hope that we can avoid relegation, although a big ask. As disappointed as I am over the results the style of football has been an improvement.

Not true. Norwich Union, the major secured creditor are still being paid what they are owed. No point them trying to wind us up. Barclays - are they even a secured creditor? Even if they are they will have a subordinated priority position. No point them demanding repayment of the overdraft. The most likely people to place the club into administration are not the banks, they are the directors. It will be the one simple act from the bank of failing to honour our cheques which will instigate administration. Once we lose the support of the bank, that’s it unless you can find someone else to allow us to keep trading. What was acceptable at the beginning of the season has been seriously eroded by worsening economic factors, both nationally and as an individual business. We have a very tenuous link of faith with the bank for their continued support, because of these worsening financials. Should the bank not be happy with the direction we are taking or actually go against their advice, I doubt anymore would be required. The worse things get, it can just take the smallest of actions to lose the confidence of the bank. They have to be given the belief that by sticking with the club, they can recuperate more of the debt than by taking the action that places us in administration. I imagine the bank will be looking at the January window and see where we are after that ends, or unless someone has / or is prepared to underwrite losses

That's one of the most ridiculous statements you've ever written. Are you suggesting that a highly paid striker would cost us more than the total sum of administration Let's just explain how things work in the real world. If we lose the confidence of the bank, that is the end of the matter an in comes administration. If we try and keep an expensive striker when it is possible to get his wages off the bill the bank will not support us. They will not be considering whether we are relegated, they will see a club out of control with little regard for controlling costs. So if we insist on keeping that striker the bank puts us into administration before he has a chance of kicking a ball, let alone scoring. Do you really think that would help? Any other plc would have been placed into administration ages ago. I don't know what it is with the reluctance of banks to pull the plug on football clubs, but in nigh on any other industry it would be academic now.

Without a doubt there have been times when you can clearly see the strain getting to Jan, but that is totally natural when you consider what he has had to contend with. The shifting sands of our finances since his arrival has removed options that he would have liked to use, but has just had to get on with what is left. When you look at how the financial picture has compounded over the season it is hardly a surprise. First we can't sell on our high earners, then we can't even get them out on loan quick enough to reduce the wage bill, others are injured just holing the finances. Added to that gate receipts going down and we have the possibility of being lumbered with the high player salaries coming back in January. This clearly shows the worsening financial position of the club and something will have to be done to address the problem, otherwise the bank will pull the plug. If Surman and Lallana do leave, it will not be to increase profits, but to reduce our mountain of debt. When you look at everything that the coach has to contend with and what lies ahead, I don't think many could stand up to that emotional buffering and not come out of it unaffected. Lowe is instigating this without a doubt, but that is what he should be doing to try and save our club. The only reason it will be done is to avoid us going into administration. There will be no profit made from this, just a reduction in what we owe. If Crouch loved the club so much he could even go it alone rather than waiting for someone else to hold his hand. But as we know, that love comes with a price even if the club were to fold as a result.

And this in a nutshell is what it is all about. I really enjoyed the game, but the equaliser so late on was a real sickener, which just dissipated everything that had previously been played out. There is not much required to make this a side capable of sneaking into the play off's with just a couple (maybe 1) decent additions. The trouble is that is just pie in the sky for us with our financial condition.

The announcement to the stock market was forced upon the club by the original article in the Evening Standard and Crouch's statement to the Echo

Either Paul Allen is a liar or Crouch is a liar. Which do you believe, the worlds biggest benefactor who has absolutely no reason to lie or the excuse why we kept hanging out for investment? I would like to know all about this money that Crouch put into the club, where it went, did it stay there or just another I will if you will. Wilde and Lowe both have a responsibility for where we are now, but equally so does the idiot Crouch. We are not in a desperate situation. We can last a year or even further without investment. A lot of people have been talking Southampton Football Club down and they should not be. It is a great club and we are not in the position people are trying to portray in the media. Those criticisms are unfair. It was a difficult situation with SISU. We are not rock bottom or in a situation where we have to take a proposal from organisations who want to buy us on the cheap. 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. 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 have assets and the reduced number of executives means we now have a leaner and meaner board. All clubs in the Championship need money and we are in the same situation but we have better facilities than a lot of the clubs in this league, we have a good squad of players and we have assets. We are definitely not in a position like Coventry who were rock bottom.

Let's take this on then, any fan who feels strongly about the board or chairman should boycott to show they are a fan that really cares. It is utter stupidity that once engrained will carry over to the next chairman or board. So if Crouch becomes our next chairman and things are just as bad, if we think he's useless we should all boycott St Mary's. We will get what we deserve and in reality I can't see this fan base any where near deserving to many others in the CCC. We shall reap what we sow, because if we wanted to do something about it we could.

Show me any fan who stopped going to St Mary's (or even quoted) because Lowe was no longer there? There are several fans who despise Wilde and Crouch, but I have never heard one of them who was not going to St Mary's for that reason. So you have fans that just want the best for the club irrespective and others only willing to give their support where they can get to select the board, who exactly are the fans? I have never said it has to be Lowe, just someone who would tackle the problems we face in a realistic manner. Someone who is prepared to make the difficult decisions the fans don't like. If I thought Crouch was capable I would have no problems, but from his previous statements and actions, he is the last pick of the bunch. Just how could all these fans on the board let things get so bad? They were perfectly happy to speak out about other issues, but on the question of the finances they remained stunningly silent or actually argued black was white. The thwatty matty's believe they are the genuine fans and everyone should follow, irrespective of what is best for Saints. But their actions compared to others fall far short of a description of fan.

Crouch cares for the club in his own way, which has to align to his ego and prejudices. Although Wilde caused most of the damage, Crouch is right up there and without doubt the idiot of the 3. Trying to work with Crouch must have been a nightmare for the previous execs and resulted in an environment that snowballed to our current predicament. It's all right talking about having a plan to square the club financially, then just stick your head in the sand and leave the nasty work to someone else. In effect he did the square root of feck all to address our problems, only magnified them. His one and only plan, sit on his arse and hope we get taken over by any pikey that will glance his way. You keep hearing snippets that Crouch would not have done this or that, but other equally dumb decisions are not even mentioned in passing, very selective. And will anyone look through this statement and tell me that Crouch was working towards financial prudence and creating an environment to take the club forward! "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."

Very good post this. Totally agree about Lowe wanting (and probably doing everything in his power) to offload Rasiak, Saga, John, Thomas and even Davis. It's their wages that cripple the clubs finances. Players like Lallana, Surman, McGoldrick etc will be on absolute peanuts compared to Stern John. Loaning players out is no good either. Yes it gets players off the wage bill temporarily and if you close your eyes tight and try really hard you might just dream that Bristol City and the like are paying a small loan fee, but they will be back come June 1st and then you face 10 weeks of summer wages (if not more if we can loan them out in the window). Try Rasiak and Stern john on a combined £35k a week x 10 and see how quickly the FA cup game money dissapears. I know Saga et al have their fans, but I personally will be mightly pleased if he and John can find perment homes come January (and Rasiak if at all possible). Sadly I fear they will both come back and we'll have no choice but to sell Surman for buttons to keep the overdaft under £5m. Completely agree and worth repeating. Combine this with CBFry's post on administration and you have it all in a nut shell. Whether it's Jan or Pearson, we have little option but the path we are now on. If we have expensive pro's, every angle is required to move them on. Once we are lumbered with them, that is a different matter. My gut feeling has favoured Pearson, but I don't have that many complaints about JP. Any manager that continues to function with these shifting sands below their feet require a medal. I really am surprised he has stood up to events this well, but you get the feeling that he knew what was coming. I believe his early decision to only use those players he knew would be here, a major factor in how he has managed to cope. A lot of fans want the hurt to stop and we have all had those moments where misery descends after another loss or disappointing draw. Administration is not the answer as that will just bang us down even further, with even less resources to function on. If we are in misery now, just add the anvil and millstone to each gooseberry and that will be the effect after administration. Our only real chance is if our current actions will drag in some kind of investment to get us out of this mess. I believe what Lowe and Wilde are doing is to make this club as attractive as possible from that angle, because it is underlining the positives from this mess. Then hopefully they can move over to let some real investment come in, not Billy ****** and the other side of never. However slim that option looks, our only other alternative is to fill the stadium and sort the problem ourself. But I would put money on Paul Allen coming in before that. Although we are struggling this season I have found a lot of positives from the youth players, even after the defeat by Wolves things were not depressing. Last season I felt as if there was a divide created between the fans and the players by lack lustre performances, no effort and high salaries. That gulf has definitely gone this season and I just hope we can emerge from this mess going forward.

I like Lloyd James, but will not argue with others complaints about his performances because it has been so obvious. But I feel the lad has a lot going for him and that most of his problems can be remedied easily. He really snaps into the tackle. His crossing is superb and the sheer quality will always produce goals. Gets up and down the pitch with ease and really gives support to the attack. His biggest problem is his positioning which gets him into all sorts of trouble. He has to learn to stay on his feet rather than lunge in hit or miss style. OK lunging in if you win the ball but his percentages need to be a lot higher. His defensive heading has been poor, but most of that I put down to positioning. Looking at all that, if he can sort his positioning out most of his troubles are over and then he just has to fine tune his "committed tackles". Which if he sorts out his positioning would automatically allow him to win far more of his "committed tackles" than he does now.

The single match could possibly result in a lot of extra revenue for a full house, around £500k I would imagine. Don't forget most league games will be a lot cheaper per seat than this game, where in other less attractive cup ties we have had to slash prices to get attendance. As you say financially it would be far better off up at OT, or a replay even better. The only problem is that if the match is live on free to air tv and more than likely at an odd time and day, this will cut into the attendance severely. It would not surprise me with these conditions if we only got about a 25000 crowd.

Definitely a calculated insult. Lawries now going to require a picture of the picture to understand what is going on. And denying all those people in the boardroom the glimpse of Lawrie, very selfish.

I assumed when we were talking about experienced strikers, it would relate to one that was of some use? Otherwise we may as well just stick with McG. If we wanted to keep Stern John who is the best out of the bunch, but in doing so would also mean having Saga back on our books, you really thing after everything we are going through that is going to stand up? Was that all to complicated or do you want it in pictures?

How do you expect the board to magic up an experienced striker? We will probably get lumbered with the most useless of those we have out on loan. That looks like Saga by a mile, so he could well get his chance unless he drags us into administration, but there is nothing recently to indicate it is going to be any better.

Thanks for clearing that up GM and good to hear you're back safe and sound!!!! It's a well established fact that EBC and HCC between them pulled the plug on the Stoneham Project, for a number of reasons (and not all of them just linked directly to the extra bits added on by Lowe). It just gets better and better, but secret squirrel "um a load of sheite" knows of many other reasons, unable to divulge until the time limit on the official secrets act (Eastleigh branch) has expired. You'd better thank GM again for "clearing that up". How you can look through that article and completely bypass the fact that Eastleigh Council were happy to approve the stadium, but Lowe could not afford the finances in that scenario. It must be the reading between the lines that caused all the confusion so let me help. This abandonment of logic, common sense or even fact when confronted with anything connected to Lowe, just emphasises the stupidity of your position.

Without getting into the long winded explanation, I just accepted that the reason the Stoneham Stadium never went ahead was because of Lowe. I have clearly stated in the past (even to your myopic self), that the finances did not stack up at Stoneham and Lowe insisted upon the additional requirements to make those finances stack up. Eastleigh Council refused the additional options and the Lowe walked away because it failed the financial conditions without those options. As for your second assumption regarding St Mary's, Lowe went for St Mary's because it made economic sense, if it did not we would have remained at the Dell. There was only one criteria for moving from the Dell and that was it had to make financial sense. If it never made financial sense, there would be no move. How dumb do you have to be just to understand that basic concept?

We all know that our best playing chance of staying in this league is to try and hang onto our promising youth players. But the bank has removed that option and we just have to hope that others coming through will be able to take their place. We had that option for a long period when Lowe was interfering and trying to get the youth players in the team. That option is no longer available to us after ****ing everything against the wall. Everyone can clearly see that now is not the optimum time to be selling these players, but if we do not, the administrator will. And if you think we would be selling them off cheap, wait until you see those clearance prices. All these niceties were available to us over the last few years, but not any longer. That was squandered awaiting for the take over fairy to come and make everything better.

There is no blame attached to GM's post, just that he finds it very difficult to describe someone who deliberately goes out of their way to give any form of financial aid to the club they imagine they support, with others even wanting the team to lose or the club go into administration. Any normal person would identify these positions as being those of a skate, not a Saints supporter. If these "supporters" had complained this hard when we were getting into this mess, they may have a toe to stand on. But it has never been about the club for them, that is just a side show in their agenda.

This is how I see it too. What a total load of muppet speak. In case the accounts slipped by unnoticed, how exactly will we get a profit. This is purely about one thing, survival. If we ever get back to those heady days where we are running on a profit making basis, it would be really nice to have the option of discussing whether Lowe was tucking it into his back pocket, but that is so far off.