Window Cleaner

Might I just nominate BWP to first in the queue to be loaned out? Then Euell,I did think he play a much bigger part for us this season. Injury,Suspension and ??? seem to prove to be too much for that to happen.

You obviously never saw Paul Bennett then. Paul (a school colleague of mine) did a fantastic job on some of the country's best attacking players of the time. Lancashire not so much (at the moment).Perhaps the forwards are just getting better and better though. Strange though in those days nearly every fan of the club (common or garden terrace fans that is) had been to school with (or their kids had) at least one of our first team players. They came from Tauntons,St Marys,Barton Peverill, St Johns Gosport, Brockenhurst Grammar. Most had seen them play (or played against them) at Hampshire Schools Sixes on the Sports Centre;No-one considered them too young or too inexperienced,football was like that. Nowadays if they don't cost 45 million and start playing at 48 years old they're considered young and inexperienced.

A big win 2-1 Nah not really, but hey it's Christmas Eve.

Are you his mum??? Represented feelings of a majority, my ass.

Nah, doesn't ring any bells.

Which shareholder was he representing anyway?? One of our local MPs perhaps. Whatever happened to that "working party" he was putting together with MPs and City Councillors??, thinking about it it was probably they who gave him the coppers, our share of the government bail out.

yep in the UK when there's no credit there's no sustainable life form. How did you all get into that mess? Woolies I can understand, out of date, haven't moved with the times but an "entertainment store" chain. Young people (and not so young) have always bought discs,cassettes and videos. If they've stopped it means that the insular world is that is the British Isles is about to end.

He's not a loanee, that's the point. A loanee is crap, you get shot of him when his loan is up. A signed player is crap, not so easy, if you can get rid of him make hay whilst the sun shines, otherwise you have a whole load of dross getting paid for a long,long time.At least we've learnt our lesson there.

So it's been extended, no mention of 500K swans winging our way though is there. The club don't want the bloke (apparently) he's got 6 months left on his contract,loan extended, no swans. End of. Signs for them at the end of the seasons. I mean if we say to them give us the dosh and they say **** off it will cost us nearly as much, nice try though.

I have, 4-00 am till 11 am this week so I'll be signing off soon,

Richard was silly, should have bought at least a couple of shares so that Rupert couldn't deny the fact that he was a shareholder in his own right,with every right to attend the meeting. Smacks of amateurism if you ask me.A shareholders proxy you see, ie no individual right to be present, lowest of the low etc etc. Don't care about the rest, all's fair in love and war and all that, but get the basis of being there right at least.

He's obviously been reading up on Houdini,

9.95% unless he's upped it recently

Very little in loans, very very little. We've probably dropped our salary mass by much more than 100K a week. Consider that Claus+John+Rasiak+Saga accounts for at least 50K/wk. Then there's all the rest, Vignal probably cost more than Smith,Pekhart,Robertson,Pearce,Gasmi and Morgan put together. Cork is probably subsidised by Chelsea.Vignal cost us a great deal of money, like renting a flash pad, you pay through the nose and it's never yours at the end of the day.We would have taken an attendance drop anyway. Go on I'll be generous and say 3000 down due to team/Lowe/Quality issues. 3000x23x£18 (av ticket price allowing for VAT and concessions[about £13.50 last season] =£1.24 million against a saving of at least £5 million.

It's true the Davies knee problem was known at the time that we actually bought him. I could see that paying a mill or so for a player plus 10 or 11K a week for a total of 23 games might irk more than one.Especially as the knee injury is ongoing,he's on the bench at Stoke but still not earning his crust up there. We just couldn't afford that really. 6 months down the line and still nothing to show for it. 1.3 million banked and 300K saved. Pity, when he did play he was handy enough.

Now I could see it this way. Say he say 1 player COST us 15% of our total revenue, not earned but cost. That would apply to Saga,Thomas or Davies if the salary was high enough.

Andrew Davies or Wayne Thomas, take your pick.

Don't know, all I know is that the "potential debt" has been severely cut. I am totally against underperforming, overpaid footballers.Anyone who shoves his foot up the chuff of a lazy,good for nothing player who's laughing all the way to the bank for absolutely f-all is doing it "the right way" for me. With 100K a week and counting off the salary mass we're heading in the right direction. It is just my opinion that sometimes you've got to take the medicine,however nasty and unpleasant it may be. I thought Lowe was miserly and minable when we could afford better,just now can't see that he's far off the right track,however much I dislike it.

Nothing to do with me, all I ask is financial prudence, Lowe is administering it so it's OK by me for the moment.Not the results, just the Modus Operandii.

Have you never considered the idea that the players may have actually contributed to the affair? I mean I can't see the club paying for a **** up. A training week that turned into a **** up perhaps.

Maybe Santa will turn up trumps.

I wouldn't even turn up one day a fortnight for 25K/annum to be honest. Not to get shîte slung at me on a permanent basis.

It just makes you wonder just how many shares they really "control" doesn't it. I mean Crouch would seemingly buy some if there were any to be had but there doesn't seem to be any (in a quantity sufficiently interesting) to be had. There's a lot of smoke and mirrors in SLH PLC's share holding. .

Same place as the 15% of total revenue player I expect.

But Jonah, what you have to admit here is that in the Summer of 2007, ier after getting to the playoffs and having a reasonable season with an expenditure of 7 million or so we actually sold players to the tune of about 14 or 15 million £, the wrong players perhaps but we had made money in the transfer market. Whoever sanctioned the 7 million was about there or thereabouts, OK we should have got automatic promotion but apart from a spot of bad luck when we didn't need it we were about right. So we sold and bought for less. In that period the club actually made money on transfers.Board makes decisions that make money-yep sounds about right. Where we went wrong was after the play-off season. We sold and bought. The players that we bought however were dump,or not,anyway they didn't perform and Claus got injured,who could bargain for that really? Thomas wasn't up to the job,Vignal took a long time to settle, strange for an acomplished player with a solid knowledge of the English game,Saga stopped scoring, who could predict all that?? It could well be that the only bad decision anyone made was NOT SACKING BURLEY, that's the real problem, the root cause of all evil,whoever opposed that takes 100% of the blame.Especially as Lowe is on record as saying Burley was being handled badly.