Nineteen Canteen

My understanding is you don't put yourself in administration your creditors do that for you. I'm not sure we all know the facts but at this stage you may wish to direct your anger towards Barclays as it was perfectly feasible that 6 days earlier they had given no indication they were going to withdraw their support and Lowe at the time was I am told working very hard to secure extra funding or investment. I am fairly certain the board would have notified Barclays of the football league impedning deadline and can only assume they received a satisfactory response. So before you start acting as if you are in the know lets get some clarity as to what actually happened otherwise your post could be deemed as libellous.

Mike, Crouch maybe less to blame as he was probably taken in as much as the rest of us. However, my understanding is until the eleventh hour he backed Lowe until he switched forcing Lowe to resign. Crouch and Lowe in hindsight even as recently as the past few months could have saved this club IMO. the balance of good and necessary evil if you like. IMO Crouch on his own was too soft and to concerned about fans' perceptions. Lowe was responsible mostly for the relegation but I think his initial prudence has in hindsight been proven to be a wise approach and whilst he may have made further mistakes if he had been here without a break i don't think they would have been quite so catastrohpic as what has happened this season. I couldn't critiscise anyone in trying to make the best of this season and putting on a positive spin. Survival without support from day 1 was bigger odds than last weeks Grand National winner.

Mawhinney has not kicked this into the long grass just merely passed the buck to the experts so he can make is decision backed by the gravitas of some forensic accountants. We all know what the decision will be and any impact on the Academy won't IMO be given a second thought. I would agree the penalty system is ill thought out but not morally bankrupt as clubs deliberately going bust to avoid honouring their debts to start again paying ridiculously inflated salaries to footballers. Clubs cannot be allowed to go down that route without fear of drastic punishment. Footballers a bit like houses have effectively priced themselves out of the market except maybe at the most elite clubs in Europe. Its unsustainable but Mawhinney won't tackle that will he?

Phil, I am literally exhausted having digested Daren's post so can't really do your's the justice it deserves. However, in essence I agree with you in that Lowe knew we were a basket case without any assets left to strip and effectively dying. That said he probably had seen the previous season and felt sitting back and hoping for an unrealistic investement was not an option. Especially as that option many of us knew wouldn't happen whilst the shrewdies sat in the treetops. What Lowe do was make drastic cutbacks safe in the knowledge he could hardly make himself anymore unpopular and with the extra support from last season he could have pulled it off but I don't doubt he didn't think for one minute it was going to be very very close for survivial on both fronts. Many of us knew that anyway from day 1 so I'm sure he did. Our club like many others has lived beyond its means in terms of trying to satisfy the demands of their fans. Lowes lack of investment in our first season in the CCC was to try and protect and secure a sound foundation from the future but thta not unsurprisingly did not meet the fans expectations. Prudence vs the Wilde gamble was the choice although to be fair the latter was dressed up to be something entirely different. Blame rosie cheeks for relegation from the Premiership and I can see the obvious arguments with the managers merry go round but blame Lowe for what has led to this then its a resounding no and I blame Wilde and Crouch - reluctant or otherwise. Had Lowe remained as chairman we would still be a CCC side albeit a mid table one along the lines of an Ipswich or a QPR and I think it is unlikely I can be convinced otherwise.

Daren, you exhaust me and once again you have missed the point I have always felt justified in making in that McMenemy was IMO a menace behind the scences and acted like a cancer to the future of this club. We just need to agree to disagree if was out of context and how grave the situation must or mustn't be to use it. I felt is was appropriate you didn't because of your situation. We could debate this for ever but the bottom line is I have never felt any ill will towards you or your Mum and I sincerely hope she continues her brave fight for as long as she is able and I fully understand what you are going through as I too lost my Dad not so long ago through a degenerative disease and its something that you've no idea how to cope with until it happens to your family. Shortly afterwards as you know my wife was seriously ill with Breast Cancer and thankfully for us is in remission for which I awake every morning and give thanks to whoever it is who listens. At the same time we have lost a very good friend who was treated as the same time as my wife, same diagnosis and that has been difficult to comes to terms with. I'm not sure what you mean by face the consequences but obviously its not pleasant and for all my faults Daren and your abuse i don't think i have ever wished you any ill. I understand your position with regard to the club and just don't believe on this occassion you our right because no doubt we could form an orderly queue around SMS with our sad situations many of us have been dealing with in our day to day lives and you continue to cope with. It appears you don't want to draw a line under this and will continue to bring it up unecessarily. I would like to simply accept we agree to disagree because I never insulted your Mum or any other cancer sufferers only those perhaps who have a different view on how the club should manage it's charitable requests and the role of McMenemy. You personlised the debate Daren not me and if you want to let that to continue then fair enough but I have tried to make peace with you without compromising my personal opinions which I hope you can respect.

An interesting read but ulimately raises more questions than it answers but as a brief synopsis of history it's a good read. If I was to conclude anything from this it's simply the fact we need an absolutely clean slate. With no disrespect to anyone involved in the past from major shareholders, directors or respected fans we need a massive broom and no hangers on left on the periphery. We can only hope for a previously unconnected buyer with their own team to install. The meddling has to stop and without it transparency and unity are but pipe dreams and that is why I am so anti any further fan funded Saints groups as unfortunately there will always be those trying to seek some ego driven or political advantage from the situation. The less we say about previous directors the better but the same applies. In the end it's a depressing read from which no one comes out of it untarnished.

Duncan does that mean I shall have to go and buy some cord trousers and get some suede patches sown on my jacket before I visit the newsagent?

little? In what way?

That's gotta hurt

Bit harsh Wes, I would agree with 1 hapless dutchman and 1 who seems to show similar credentials to Pearson and has an endorsement from Martin Jol so maybe someone we should hang to, given money could be even tighter going forward.

Srry Mik, my mistak. Appears on my old keyboard the L O W and E keys weren't working. Should be better now.

Um, I didn't realise until last night who you were and your past roles. Things are much clearer this morning although I must say I was dumbfounded to find out what you did or now do given the way you conduct yourself. My guess is your able pupils are a little less antagonistic, less juvenile and easier to deal with than yourself and you appear to be the Hyde to Steve Grant's Jekyll. At least I have my answer as to why the SOS did not choose (or so it seems) to link up with the Saints Trust for all their shortcomings they doo seem to have a little more polish and a little less egocentric. Things are clearer now Stephen and that chip must be a heavy burden that is unbalancing you not just physically. You are just someone who use to be in the know and strung along by Wilde and co, in my limited opinion. Now you are out of the loop relying on increasingly irrelevent contacts.

Um, Im surprised as an ex-accountant that you put no stall in looking at what is happening elsewhere in your sector of business. I would argue football clubs that less than 5 years ago were doing well in the Premiership and now very likely dropping into League 1 is not a good sign or mere coincidence. With one gone bust and the other looking precarious financially it is of significant interest and is indicative that outside the higher echelons of the Premiership football clubs are becoming unsustainable in their current guise. It is not irrelevent and I am sure that other Chairman are not turning a blind eye to our situation along with Charlton and perhaps beginning to consider that lessons need to be learned. The club has been run appallingly in recent years and the lack of financial constraint under Wilde, Hone and Crouch alarming IMO and perhaps had they taken a good look at Leeds they would have understood the need for tight money management vs. a tilt at windmills. You can only spend what you haven't got until the credit is run dry. I'm surprised by your innocence to be honest.

I agree that if reducing ticket prices to say £15 a game generated an extra 5,000 on the gate then it would have been a must do and I'm certain the board must have looked at this and no doubt someone like David Luker would be able to advise us but probably not publicly. The question is though would there have been 5,000 fans like yourself who would have stepped up to the ticket office because I doubt it would sway the beligerant stay aways with their own agenda's be it Lowe or the diet of fayre on offer. Therefore, offering tickets at that price and then say only getting an extra 1,000 on the gate would have been undermining everything else they were trying to do not to mention appeasing the ST holders who were already paying more than that a game. In hindsight perhaps the club should have contacted all ST Holders, members and fans who had purchased say 10 tickets for home games last season with a questionnaire explaining the situation and with the club's ideas to raise gates and reduce process to bolster revenue. Even then the pledge to buy or acceptance from ST holders may not have have materialised in sales. I agree with your theory but a very tough decision to make by the club given the circumstances and I wouldn't have liked to call it knowing what was at stake. What do you think, putting yourself in their shoes for a moment? (I accept and understand you would have liked to have seen lower prices)

Couldn't agree more but it requires an acceptance on both sides that people have opposite views and can hold them without false accusations being made by those who disagree. On a good point I think I have connected as a Saints fan with some people who have fiercely been against me and they are a great example to the way this forum should be as Weston has requested. JustMike is a case in point and I respect his opinion and as a fellow fan who regardless of who he feels is to blame is suffering as a loyal supporter and upset that he has to try hard to persuade his sons to go to the game these days with him because they are losing faith. To that degree we are exactly the same and suffering the same fate even though we may differ on how that arose and who was culpable. Therefore, I believe there is a chink of light for unity but I won't stop posting opinions to satisfy those who prefer to bully or act behind a more sinister agenda that seems set out solely to defame the posters character to avoid responding to their comments in the hope they go away. Anyway, Happy Easter everybody lets hope there is another resurrection in the coming weeks although I doubt it will get bank holiday status.

To be honest Weston I was hoping you were involved in one of the consortium's FF alluded to last week as I fear your efforts elsewhere may be wasted. I have been critcal of SOS only because of the disjointed way it has been presented and the focus on financial benefits it will deliver to the fans as oppose to how it will actually run the club. They have their work cut out but hopefully with you on board some of the bigger picture stuff will be addressed and communicated to the rest of us because strong leadership and at least £15m + is paramount and that seems lacking on both counts.

Why were the average attendances higher last season when we missed out on relegation by 20 minutes and this season with it being well publicised the club was struggling to survive did we lose anything form 2,500 to 5,000+ fans from DAY 1. I repeat Day 1, before perfomance became an issue and it wasn't exactly great last season, worse when you consider how much of club funds we p1ssed on players on their last hurrah/take. The differences in averages would have generated enough revenue about £1.3m to probably satisfy the bank. Fans decided to let their blind hatred for the chairman take precedent over their alledged unconditional support for the club.

Excellent post and being in charge of your own destiny was always 100% better than placing the club's future in the hands of bankers looking to protect the interests of their shareholders and operating under heavy scrutiny from the government, the BoE, the regulators, the media and the public. I don't care if Lowe and his cronies were in charge it could have the entire cast from the Magic Roundabout for all I care but without the unconditional support of those who attended last season but decided to walk away this season we were screwed whoever was in charge. Thanks to Lowe's efforts we survived as long as we did and I'm convinced with that extra support we would have survived both financially and in the Champsionship and how good would that feel compared to now? 'Be careful when asking for what you would like as you may be forced to like what you get'. I sense there is going to be no spoonfuls of sugar with the doses of medicine we are about to be administered. Since Lowe has gone and the Administrators moved in there is an increasingly sense of resigned apathy and downbeat air and probably more in fighting than ever especially from those desperately trying to convince themselves this is a good thing. Its not and anyone who listened to Fry's interview on Solent yesterday during half time will understand just how bad things really are. I would doubt there is an acceptable bid on the table at the moment. It's clearly and understandably affected the players why shouldn't it many are approaching retirement and some young players maybe worried about their future should the club fold that they simply can't lift their heads and switch off and many probably already have other deals lined up and want to keep fit for medicals. We will get the 10 point deduction but we don't have the will or belief to get out of the relegation zone. Therefore, next season we will start -10points and it will be more as I doubt all debts will be repaid so it could -17 -20 -27?. How much more I have no idea but hardly makes us attractive to new buyers does it? I think there is a no better than evens chance we will start 2010/11 in League 2. Administration a good idea? All depends if you believe in the stupidity of mob rule.

Saejis and Perry will be ok, Skacel will fall over a lot and feign injury and Palace will exploit that and James will either have a great game or get shirty and be sent off. Our midfield without Gillett though could be the proverbial butter to their hot knife. We need BWP to start up front with McG as Saga will simply disappear if he plays. If they score first we're toast.

Good post much of which I agree with. I have said that an extra crowd between 2,500 -5,000 on a consistent basis would have generated enough revenue to satisfy Barclays. Even taking the lower figure over 20 games @ £26 a ticket would have reduced the o/d by well over £1m. So no I don't think 10,000 stayed away just because of Lowe and agree with all your reasons not forgetting redundancies and repossessions and people in general pulling in their horns in uncertain times. My view is that fans do exist who deliberately boycotted because of Lowe and many were proud of letting us know on this forum and there are those who have yet to come to terms we are not a Premiership club and now especially will be even longer before we become one again, failing a fool or a billionaire with money to burn taking us over. Therefore, for the sake of 2,500 on the gate when it was well known we were trouble before the first game of the season it is disappointing to say the least they couldn't have provided their unconditional support from day 1. I actually don't think the Forest game proved your theory because wasn't it used as a requirement if fans wanted tickets for the Man U game? If anything Lowe missed a trick and should have charged full price for the Forest games because as fans were so keen to see Man U they would have sold close to the same amount IMO. As I say I agree with a lot of what you say but whilst we should have kept a 20 goal striker their wages would have been impossible to afford and we would have gone bust quicker. However, if we could have lent out Skacel or sold him and kept on Rasiak then great but we can only loan or sell what others want and John as been awful for Bristol City so perhaps his best was behind him. Cost drove everything and I think the accounts will show that the board did well but like you say they made mistakes. The early games there was a lot of optimism going down the youth route and we were unlucky against Cardiff and Birmingham but by November the writing was on the wall and Lowe needed to sack JP. Then we went and beat Reading and everyone is bullish again bought JP time really he didn't deserve but we as fans were feeling good again after that result and in hindsight maybe we should have lost it and Wotte could have been bought in earlier. Wotte I think is a potentially good manager similar record to Pearson and talks a good game like Pearson and in much more difficult circumstances IMO has got some good results. Recent efforts have been poor because Wotte himself said the players have been affected by the adminstration. I think that is fair enough and any employee in any situation would have their morale and performance affected by a similar situation so why should footballers be any different and it would be a shame if we judge him by what happens on the run in as I suspect many players have already got their agents securing them provisional deals with other clubs and others will be facing an earlier than expected retirement. Of course Lowe was culpable but so was Poortvilet for playing some players like Gobern when he was clearly not ready for the step up and we had other options. Barclays clearly haven't helped and to a lesser degree Aviva because if we hadn't had to go through Administration and the rumours in the days/weeks before I suspect our results would have been better not least the Charlton game or have been so tardy out the blocks vs. Wolves. We now have a 10 pt deduction pending that only Lowe and the Administrators seem confident of avoiding which has only added to the gloomy air of 'what's the point' were down and were bust. So Lowe made some bad calls but kept us in business and I believe we could have survived but equally we needed at least those extra 2,500 minimum that supported the club last season when we were 20 minutes away from league 1 without the drastic but must do cost cutting measures of which continuity was a unfortunate casualty. The only people I think who have come out of this with their reputation intact are some individual players, possibly Wotte and the fans who have regularly attended the home games this season. The blame lies with everyone else individually and collectively and with varying degrees of culpability.

Tame you're making yourself look very, very stupid with your wildly inaccurate guesses but carry on if you must but be careful as turning assumptions into fact without evidence is a dangerous game. So for the record I am not and never have been a representative of Lowe or any other member of staff of SFC from the past to present. Please confirm you have read and understood this post or are we going to go down the whole Marland thing again.

Following the Crouch model. Not many know he paid for the Bates statue and offered to put in £2m if Lowe and Wilde matched it and on and on...

Despite our differences Um it would have been nice if you had made mention of View from the Top's comment as you must have read it just above your post, or do you condone posts like that?

???? Amesbury Saint thanks for your comments. I did type a response but decided to leave it to the mods.

Ban me Daren, why what have I done? Other than try to post a more balanced view of the situation instead of some of the blind faith that exists. Supporting a football club is a religion and often requires a leap of faith to stay involved but it's not beyond question and the more blindly accepted views at times need to be challenged. This club needed Lowe second time around but the blind said otherwise hence this mess we are in. When are you going to drop the cancer thing? Remember you took offence and got things out of perspective because I originally used the word to describe how I thought McMenemy was a negative influence on the club IMO. You felt that people (me especially) shouldn't use the word cancer because of those who suffer from the illness and it is offensive to them. I was NEVER insulting towards your Mum, NEVER and offered you my sympathies at the time. However I was stunned you reacted to the use of the word in the way that you did. You must write a lot of letters to the media Daren over its consistent use to describe people or things that can act insidiously and to the detriment of the greater good. There is still a hooligan element in football that acts like a cancer to its future development and public profile. Do you agree? Oh and I still support the club in not supporting your individual request for a signed shirt on behalf of your Mum or for you to collect for charity on the perimeter of the ground. The club had a very good charitable profile in the community and did a lot to support causes and Crouch himself organised the Breast Cancer Day. If they started to honour individual cases they would be inundated with requests with 1 in 3 of us likely to contract cancer in our lifetime and then we have all the other illnesses. It's more than understandable you couldn't see that at the time at felt aggrieved but that didn't make you right either so lets drop it shall we?