Wes Tender

Again, it is a mistake to talk about the infrastructure costs of the parking, roads, access, lighting, etc, inferring that they were down to the club exclusively. The same access and parking would have been utilised by the athletics arena, the tennis courts, playing fields, hotel, bowling, restaurants, ice rink and whatever else was placed on the site. As a lot of that was to be built by Eastleigh, then they would have borne a lot of the cost.

A lot of what you say about the background is correct. Your meeting, with others, was with Davies Dear. My meeting with others at the time that the project was moving forward, was with the principal Council Officer in charge of it, whose name will come to me soon. Although the waters were muddied by Southampton City Council and Hampshire County Council owning some of the land, Eastleigh Borough Council were the main local authority with a say on it and although Davies Dear might have objected to the development, the Council as a whole was for it. The football stadium was merely the centrepiece of the development and the feeling was that the whole project would put Eastleigh on the map and was a desirable facility a feather in their cap. Regrettably, the protests began some before by a load of NIMBYs, the sort of hypocrites who don't like football, but probably go and watch the cricket which I detest, in my back yard. I have lived here at West End for over 16 years and don't recall anybody asking me as a local resident whether I objected to the Rose Bowl. The thing was announced as a fait accomplis and that was the first that I had heard about it. Double standards as usual. The cinema complex went on to the Swan centre as originally planned, not on the Pirelli site. The St. Mary's site only became available when Stoneham collapsed. Several councillors felt concerned that Southampton would not have a new stadium and were looking for a solution. Some land that had been zoned for Social Housing on the old gasworks site was being discussed and one of them had the bright idea that it might have been suitable for the stadium site. The club had been resigned to staying at the Dell and bit their hands off at the offer. I heard a couple of snippets at council level as a result of the fallout between the club and the various councils, as there was some bad blood caused by it all. Eastleigh were extremely angry at Lowe and the club and I had it from fairly high up there that should the land at Jackson's Farm be put forward for development, they would refuse permission. Secondly, I heard at the same time that Southampton would probably zone the land that they owned at Stoneham for social housing to put the noses of those NIMBYs out of joint for the part they played in blocking Stoneham for so long. I had also heard that the Conservatives running Hampshire at the time did not feel very cosy towards Lowe because he had stood as a Referendum Party candidate, although I am not sure about the timescale on that. These are the sort of petty tit for tat reprisals that occur in local politics and they muddied the waters with Stoneham. But these problems were not insurmountable had there not been the stubborn intractable stance on the cinema and the retail developments by Lowe. Ultimately, the project could have gone to the Home Office (I think) for a final ruling. I believe that Two Jags Prescott was in charge then and he was likely to have approved, as he would have anticipated that the majority of football supporters (wrongly in my case) were Labour voters and that there were votes in it for them.

Me too. I am enjoying supporting the club and the people running it more than at any time in the past decade. There is an honesty and an integrity to it that has been lacking these past few years.

It seems that I'll just have to repeat those same old arguments to counter yours after all. St. Mary's was a stand alone stadium with no additional revenue generators, so Stoneham had that advantage for a start. The reason why Stoneham didn't proceed, was because Lowe wanted a multiplex cinema complex and shopping outlets the size of the Chandlers Ford ASDA on site. Both of these things could not be allowed because the shops would have affected trade in the town centre and the cinema had already been earmarked for the Swan centre. A number of other alternative revenue stream generators would have been perfectly acceptable, such as a big 4* hotel, a bowling alley, ice rink, Planet Hollywood type restaurant, night club, sports megastore etc. The site would also have included an international standard athletics stadium additional to the football stadium, tennis courts, playing fields, etc. In light of the fact that there was no alternative at the time, the debate must centre around the fact that apparently the club were satisfied that the project would have stacked up financially with the cinema and shopping, but somehow not with the list of things I mentioned above. The finance for all the ancilliary sports facilities would have been borne by the Council. The complex in its entirety would have achieved widespread recognition once International athletic events had been held there and much more likely to have attracted investment. In the event of the situation that we found ourselves in when we went into administration, the club would have been much more saleable. Also, in light of the problems that our rivals down the road find themselves, the potential for ground-sharing would have been a more practical option, so we must be grateful at how things turned out and that it is not an option now. So the case that somehow St. Mary's was sustainable financially without any additional revenue generation facilities, but that the smaller stadium at Stoneham with several revenue generators was not, is yet to be explained. Yes, there was political wrangling by the three councils involved, but the way that the club approached it with Lowe's usual charm was not conducive to its smooth passage anyway. Ultimately, when the impasse had been reached, I understand that there was provision for the decision to have been taken to the Home Office for jurisdiction. We ought to never forget that at the time of the collapse of Stoneham, the only remaining solution was to attempt to shoehorn another thousand or so seats into The Dell. Thankfully, Southampton City Council found the St. Mary's site for us and saved Lowe's bacon. Undoubtedly we would have been relegated shortly afterwards anyway, but with the smaller ground capacity and delapidated stadium, we would not have presented the investment opportunity that attracted us to ML. We might have kept afloat in the third division, as we had no debt with The Dell, but neither would we have had any realistic hope of ever getting back to the top flight. It is impossible to surmise where we might have been now had Stoneham succeeded, but as it has turned out with St. Mary's we have been extremely fortunate that the stadium debt that caused our financial downfall once we were relegated, was effectively the magnet that attracted ML to buy us from the bargain basement, the infrastructure being sound and attractive once the debt had been reduced in administration.

I know. They make all sorts of excuses saying that there are visa issues, etc. But then his brother seems to be able to attend the odd match without much problem.

In general, I would agree with your summary. But there is just one small factor that makes me question this premise that the whole venture is purely an investment without any additional element of being a rich man's play thing. If that were so, why would ML bother to attend pretty well every match? That is suggestive that his interest is deeper than one would expect of just an investor. It suggests that the interest is proprietorial. He must have his fingers in so many pies that his time is valuable, but yet he makes time to travel all this way to watch the matches. When you contrast that with the situation down the road with their owner, who hasn't even attended one match, then it is reasonable to be suspicious about Al Faraj's motives, but to be encouraged about ML's hands on approach. What is your take on ML's exemplary attendance record at matches? Is it just a diligent approach to business that he displays with all his companies, or is there the element of enjoyment with this one that encourages us to believe that he will become hooked as we are?

They came here as business people, but who is to say that they not might go native, as it were and grow to love the club as we do? Granted, they have no roots in the local area as such, although NC is living down here and ML visiting frequently, so their affinity to us is different to that felt by most of us. But then again, they have something that none of us do, they actually own the club. It might be just a pure financial speculation, but perhaps it is also a rich man's toy. If the latter, then already the feelings are less sanguine. A lot might also depend on what the club achieves under their stewardship. An element of pride would certainly be there if we started winning a cup or two, starting with the JPT. A sense of achievement if we gain promotion back to the Premiership and then the feelings grow that this is their baby and they grow reluctant to part with it. Not beyond the bounds of possibility that this scenario could unfold.

I think that the feeling that things are too good to be true would be understandable given the charlatans that have been running the club the past decade or so. Then, the people in charge had a background as solicitors, accountants and city types, few of whom had experience in running real businesses. Markus Liebherr is a self-made man. He decided to part ways with the family Crane business that his father had built up from nothing into a multi-billion pound Global enterprise and proceeded to form his own multi-billion pound Global business. Both father and son had strict business principles that dictated that they would not borrow money to build their businesses, so I do not see how ML will have changed that philosophy with this one. Presumably, the financing of these players and the running costs are mostly covered by revenue raised through the turnstiles and other revenue strings and he pays for anything else out of his pocket. As others have said, there is undoubtedly an element of speculating to accumulate too, but effectively the expenditure on players at this level is small potatoes compared with the returns that would be realised when we get back to the Premiership. Even then, the players bought in have a value themselves, which in turn could well escalate if they grow in ability with us, so they are also an investment. As for Nicola Cortese, his ability in the financial World would make the previous incumbents look like pygmies. Probably nobody appreciates better than him how ML likes to do business and I'm sure that ML is entirely comfortable that NC has his hands on the purse-strings. I'm certainly enjoying the ride at the moment and not anticipating having any feelings of doubt or worry for several years to come. Even if ML's health deteriorates so that he needs to consider selling up, I'm confident that when that time comes, we will be a very saleable commodity, attracting a much better calibre of buyer than the lot down the M27.

So kindly inform us all of the natural conclusion that one has to arrive at from your last sentence. It is that in the absence of any other alternative site to build a stadium locally, we would still be at The Dell with 15000 seats. Please don't forget that at the time of the Stoneham project, there was no other alternative. Your post should be viewed agianst that background and under those circumstances different criteria would have been brought into play regarding it. Not that I agree for one second anyway about your assertion that Stoneham was not viable financially, especially as it would have accommodated an extra 10,000 bums on seats. But I grow tired of arguing the toss against those blinkered individuals who believe that Lowe had no alternatives.

I seem to recall another of these bright Derby prospects who had fallen out of favour there and who would be rejuvenated here. What was his name now? Oh yes. Lee Holmes.

Good post, Frank. Measured and considered.

Ah! The old "you don't agree with my point of view, so you must be thick, argument".

OK. Truce. I'm with you that things are so much better now, even in this division, because we have some degree of certainty that we will soon return to the top table of British football and that the fans and the board are once more reunited towards achieving that end. And in the spirit of seasonal goodwill, I'll concede that Lowe might have been capable of running a football club properly. Just not this particular one.

Stop laughing for a second if that's possible and kindly tell me which part of my post was delusional. I never said that we were not prone to relegation like other clubs, but the poor way that we were run as a business guaranteed it sooner or later. I pointed out a couple of reasons. Do you care to debate them, (again) rather than just this rather childish "your post is so ridiculous that I it made me laugh" attitude? The Club was not well run, but if our opinions differ, then there is no way that I can convince you otherwise, even if I could be bothered to make the effort. But a well run club might well have remained in the Premiership arguably, or at the very least the Fizzy Pop division.

There is a subtle difference when making comparisons between the behaviour of Lowe and Cortese. Lowe came into this club on the back of some very dodgey share dealings which many might and did find morally and ethically indefensible. In over a decade in charge, he brought virtually nil investment into the club and presided over our relegation down two divisions. Cortese introduced us to a Billionaire owner and the ambitions of the two of them are to restore us to our former glory. So far, they have been doing an excellent job of it and therefore I am not that bothered that a few feathers might be ruffled in the process where personality clashes sometimes occur, provided that the ultimate objective is achieved. I think that you'll find that on that basis a damned site more latitude will be granted to Cortese than ever was to Lowe.

There are a lot of things that Lowe never had. Like humility, charisma, charm for starters. Apart from that, he had no real idea how to run a business like this either, failing to understand that the more bums you have on the seats, the more dosh you have to buy players. Even then, fewer players of quality is often better than many of mediocrity.

I've also just finished reading the threads on the Palace fans' site too, including the appreciation thread. It is indeed rare to have total agreement from all posters that he is a big loss for them. When one of our players has gone elsewhere in the past, there is always a faction that responds by saying that they were crap. I can't recall one single post saying that about him.

Great news, especially considering the media reports stating that he had turned us down, not wanting to leave London. Perhaps ML put his private jet at his disposal. Frankly, that part didn't ring true anyway, as we are only an hour away from London and there can always be an argument made that the quality of life is better down here depending on what one is looking for. I loved the rather barbed remark at the end of the piece on the OS saying that it was only from the OS that the true and immediate information could be obtained first. It sounded as if they wanted to conclude by saying na-na-na-na-na.

This wasn't him by any chance? http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/4838562.Trapped_penis_cut_free_by_grinder/?ref=mr They obviously couldn't admit what the real injury was.

Keep the pot boiling, why don't you? Is there anything about what I actually wrote, that you quoted, that you disagree with? Or should we go all around the houses once more? I don't agree with what you say, but I really can't be arsed to go over it all again, as Stoneham has little to do with the subject of the thread.

Delete. Already covered

Quel surprise!

I realise that you said that he is always right to be ironic. Despite being told several times, he persists in stating that Stoneham was on an Industrial site rather than a green field site and ignoring that St. Mary's is on an Industrial site. He goes all dreamy eyed because the new stadium is close to where the club was originally founded, which is fair enough. But in the intervening century since its founding, the city has grown hugely and public transport has declined as most people travel by car. Whereas it is convenient for some to walk to St. Mary's, for anybody living on the other side of the city, or for the probable half of the fan base who live outside the city, it is naturally a problem driving into the centre, parking and walking there. Although Stoneham is inconsequential to our current state and is only debated as a sideline, nevertheless any sensible person would accept that there are arguments both for and against both sites.

You don't have much of a clue either, as the cinema was never on the cards. And additionally, as well as the airport, there was the proximity of the Railway station on main arterial routes and the good motorway links. Furthermore, the site is not in the middle of an industrial estate either and the stadium would also have had the possibility of a size expansion much as this one has and could have had several other attractions to pull in income and raise its profile other than a bowling alley. As for whether it was what genuine fans wanted or not, that is irrelevant, as it was of course the only option available at the time. Anyway, your assertion that genuine fans did not want it there is also erroneous, as that is down to convenience and although many who live in the city centre might be happiest with a stadium within walking distance, I suspect that at least an equal percentage of fans would have been happier with one that was more easy to travel to on the outskirts. Anyway, we are where we are and are used to it now. But just because Lowe f*cked up Stoneham, doesn't mean that it wasn't still a good idea from many aspects and that you should sneer at others who might have favoured it as somehow not being genuine fans.

I don't think that we're that far behind them and feel that when they come down here, we'll reverse the result from our last match. That would become more of a possibility if they were to lose a couple of key players like Beckford and Snodgrass shortly, whereas tipping the scales further in our favour, we sign a couple of good players ourselves to strengthen our defence and midfield.