alpine_saint

We are not talking about new loans. We are talking about servicing current debt. As I said, they could have bumped up the interest rate, and they would have been happy-as-larry.

Chelsea are not a plc anymore, are they ? He had legal responsibilities, and if he felt he was prevented from executing them, he should have quit.

Thanks. No doubt you are right about this. It seems a shame that certain individuals dont have the capacity to filter expressed opinions from other individuals like you have here, and accept that one does not have to be "on message" all of the time.............

No need. I am done here. I get more sense from a syphillitic badger.

Maybe I should have expanded that point. I dont buy that the global credit crunch has any impact on Barclays attitude in their dealings with SFC.

Yawn. You cant help yourself. You have nothing to say. All you are doing is trying to make me lose it in some pathetic hope to get me banned. Not going to happen...

Yes-men tend to be viewed as a good egg by everybody.

Then ignore me. I couldnt give a rat's arse what you think. He has been there over the entire period. He was kept on after radical board changes twice to offer the face of "continuity". No one has known the clubs deteriorating plight better than him. I am entitled to ask the question as to whether he has conducted himself properly taking into account his responsibilities to the shareholders, big and small, of a public listed company. Deal with it.

They are not opinions - they are sarcastic digs. If you really wanted a sensible discussion, you would have stated your case in your own words, rather than try (and fail) to be witty..

Yes, but there are legal obligations on the CFO of a public-listed company. If he felt his voice was being disregarded, he should have quit. If he didnt raise his voice at all, it is reasonable to ask the questions "why ?" and "WTF was he doing all that time ?"

Just because you lack a certain degree of self-awareness and therefore find these points anathema, doesnt mean the rest of us in the real world do......... John made similar points in the post you originally objected to - I simply summarised.

You would like to think so, wouldnt you ? Putting aside their officiousness, bankers arent complete dullards (apart from the dropouts that work for CCC football clubs). I would have argued that if Barclays play too much hardball, they are likely to get less money back than with a softly-softly approach. I dont buy this global credit crunch bollllox. That sounds like a convenient excuse. They could just raise the interest rate on the overdraft, and as long as we kept paying, they wouldnt give a shiny one.

Never read his resume before. So he's been with Lowe from the very early days. Revealing.........

Yes he does. As a Saints fan he knows the cupboard is bare at SFC - there is nothing else of value and attractiveness to sell As a Saints fan he knows the current set of players arent up to the job of keeping us up over 9 months and 46 games As a Saints fan he knows that as the fare served up on the pitch starts to deteriorate due to fitness or suspension issues, the fans will stop coming, plummeting the club finances into an even deeper tail-spin out-of-control.

Is it ? Are you really so intolerant of other perspectives that you refuse to believe I genuinely hold the opinions that I write ? That I am not on a "wind-up" ?

If the club slashes ticket prices to increase attendance, it could always compensate narked ST holders by offering them free or discounted-even-further additional tickets for a game for friends or family, and allow the ST holder to change seat for that game to sit together. It is somewhat bizarre in my opinion, that those who sneer at critics of the team and club on here using the "non-attendance" gambit are probably the very same ones that would sneer at discounted price measures being introduced by the club to increase attendances. Proof, if every it were needed, that some ST holders use their ST as a sort of piissing-contest badge-of-honour that enables them to look down on their fellow fans

I support my opinion (sniping in your book) with an argument. Saintwarwick has nothing better to say than what he thinks are witty little reposts using the original posters words.

It's a bit weak though, isnt it ? He's supposed to be the gatekeeper with fiduciary responsibilities.

Ah, so the average Saints fan is clairvoyant. Riiightyho..........

Yeeeeessss, OK, but, there is a good question here to be answered. What the hell was our CFO doing whilst Wilde and then Crouch (if we are really to believe our debt problems started in the summer of 2006, which I doubt) were racking up huge financial committments and debts ?

Some bloke on TUI called "Chester Perry" keeps banging on about Dave Jone's culpability in the complete financial mess SFC faces. Well, does he have a point ? After all, he has been a fixed feature of the managerial skyline of SFC all through the relegation period, board changes, etc. Has the CFO being ridiculously timid or negligent in preventing the burgeoning financial crisis facing SFC ? Surely he speaks up at board meetings when capital expenditure is discussed...........

LOL. Met a lot, have you ?

All Kevin Phillips said was that it never felt right here and maybe he made a mistake. Yet he gets a horrific amount of abuse from so-called Saints fans.

I suspect point c) has hit the nail on the head. After all, Lowe has a real thing about ex-employees coming out and giving him grief in public, doesnt he ??

So why didnt he say "you're a great bunch of fans, but your club has driven into the ground and consequently sucks big-time. You deserve better" ?? Honesty that keeps the fans onside. Only its spin and BS put out by the Lowe PR machine........