Scummer

We could possibly put the part that owns the stadium into administration, and keep the football part going. The problem is that we'd then have nowhere to play.

I've got a feeling that the stadium loan is secured against ticket sales. If we defaulted on the loan, Norwich Union could in theory repossess, and then sell the stadium on for as much as they could get. That wouldn't be for anything like the amount that the loan is worth. SLH would no longer be liable though. What would probably happen is that the club would reform as a new company (Portsmouth, for example, did this), and would then either have to come to some kind of arrangement to buy the stadium, or find somewhere else to play. You can see, therefore, why NU would rather not have to repossess. Even if we had to reduce our payments for a while, that would be better for them than the alternative. As to why those clubs didn't lose their grounds, the simple answer would probably be that they didn't have mortgages on them. Not sure what the situation was at Leicester.

Attendances are down I suppose.

The difference is that a house can always be sold to someone else who wants a house. There isn't much of a market for a second hand stadium.

They sell them in the Spar outside Southampton Central station. I rediscovered them last week.

I think there are rules to prevent companies being broken up in advance of a liquidation.

Apparently he has brought/is bringing his Spanish academy over here for a match, yes.

No, not Redknapp. Although I'm sure he wouldn't have been out of pocket.

I wasn't thinking of you.

That's what Glenn Hoddle is doing.

Think back to the time Redknapp left us. Who was it who was rumoured to have made a packet at the bookies when that happened?

What bemuses me, is that as far as I can tell the club are making no attempt whatsoever to attract the missing fans back to the club. All the focus seems to be on cutting costs, and none on increasing revenue. It's a very short-sighted way of running a business.

I find it a bit odd though. I was waking up in daylight, then I was waking up in the dark, now I'm waking up in daylight again, and in a few weeks I'll be back to waking in the dark.

Baird, Blackstock, Best, Cranie, Bridge etc? If that lot haven't raised as much as the academy costs to run, I'd be amazed.

To be fair, Webster coaches the bloke who's been our player of the season so far. If he'd gone we might be doing even worse.

Isn't that what he just said?

Well I guess we are about to see. For most people it's not a boycott as such, just despair at what has become of the club. There can be no doubt though, attendances will continue to fall. And all the time that they do, the club will continue to do nothing about it.

I wouldn't be surprised. A large part of me thinks that the only reason we've played him in the last couple of games was to show another club that he is capable of playing. Same as we did with John last week.

After the 'experience' of Swansea on Saturday, I can't be bothered to go tomorrow.

Is that where they've put Westwood and his cronies?

I thought BWP was far more deserving of criticism. Fair enough, left wing isn't his natural position, but there's no excuse for his lazy attitude. Skacel with Mills looked far more productive. I'd give those two a run of games together.

Just because you keep saying this, it doesn't make it true. How are you defining small? We are easily one of the 25 biggest clubs in the country.

I thought he was one of our better players actually. Mills played quite well when he came on at left wing. I don't think people say Skacel is a world beater, just that as we are paying him so much money, we may as well be playing him. He is plenty good enough to get in our team.

Yeah I was going to say that. We are damaging the guy's future career by continuing to play him at right back.

No chance. James has been our weak link since day one of the season. Not his fault, as he's not a right back, but he gets torn to shreds every game. I actually feel very sorry for him.